House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited an analogue justice system that has not kept pace with a digital world. Technology can and must transform the justice system. Since taking office, we have expanded the use of tagging; we are piloting new technology to automate manual work in the justice system; and I have launched a new unit, Justice AI, to further develop the use of artificial intelligence.
Shaun Davies
The recent announcement of 110,000 sitting days is welcome, but we need to use technology to streamline our justice system. Between 2016 and 2022, we saw a 25% reduction in cases being concluded. What plans do the Government have to use emerging new tech to enhance court processing, get faster justice for victims, and help manage offenders in the community, including through ankle tagging to enforce exclusion zones, and drug and alcohol testing?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We need to make sure that the whole justice system, including what happens in our criminal courts, is as efficient as it can be. That is why I have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review of the criminal courts. He will consider how to improve the courts’ efficiency, and we will report on that later in the year. There will be, I believe, a wider role for technology to play in tagging and monitoring of exclusion zones and curfews. I want to make sure that the justice system is in the best possible position to make use of emerging technology, so that we can keep our country safe.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor will accept that the effective use of electronic tags will not only make the criminal justice system more efficient, but mitigate the need for expensive prison places. Does she agree that two things are necessary for that effective use? First, the tags must be technically reliable; secondly, officials in her Department must have the commercial capacity to manage the contracts efficiently. If she agrees, what can be done to improve both those things?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises two incredibly important points. There will be a bigger role for current, new and emerging technologies in the future of our justice system, particularly in expanding the range of punishment available to us outside of prison. I want to make sure that we are at the forefront of getting the best use of our current technology and emerging tech. He is absolutely right about making sure that any commercial contracts are value for money and maintain public confidence. I am ensuring that, across the Department, we have expertise available to us, which is why the new unit that I have set up, Justice AI, will be so crucial to our efforts.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s leadership, her Department let out dozens of dangerous prisoners by mistake last year. Now we have uncovered that criminals who were let out early by her Department were not monitored for up to eight weeks, as they were not fitted with electronic tags. It is another glaring error. Will the Justice Secretary clear up some confusion? How many criminals did her Department fail to tag? Were any offences committed while these criminals went unmonitored, and who has been held accountable for this gross incompetence?
Shabana Mahmood
I am really concerned for the health of the shadow Justice Secretary, because he appears to have amnesia; he has forgotten who was in government just a few short months ago. He appears to have entirely forgotten that it was the previous Government who let the tagging contract to Serco, which I have inherited. I have made it clear that the delays that we have seen are totally unacceptable. Although the backlog has been significantly reduced, Serco’s performance is still not good enough, and although last year’s backlog of outstanding visits has been substantially reduced—it is down to normal levels—I will continue to hold it to account and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.
Robert Jenrick
We can all see that the Justice Secretary had no answers to my questions. If her Department cannot even tag prisoners properly, why should the public have any confidence in her plan to use tags in place of short prison sentences? The threshold for a prison sentence is already high. Often, criminals have committed multiple offences before they are first considered for prison, which is why scrapping short sentences will endanger the public and will serve as a green light for criminality. Will the Justice Secretary take this opportunity to reassure the public and rule out reducing sentences for burglary, theft or shoplifting? It is a simple question—yes or no?
Shabana Mahmood
The public will know that when the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left office, prisons were on the point of collapse. They can have confidence that this Government will fix the mess that his party left behind. We will ensure that prison places are always available for everyone who needs to be locked up to keep the public safe. We will expand the range of punishment outside prison and, crucially, we will ensure that those who enter the prison system can be helped to turn their back on crime. That is the best strategy for cutting crime, and one that his party never chose.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
As the hon. Member will know from his meeting with the Minster for Prisons in the other place, currently there are no plans to release land at Springhill Road. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with local representatives to ensure that we bring benefits to the local community as part of the new prison build.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, and for the Prisons Minister’s time last summer. Notwithstanding our local opposition to a new prison, it is an absurdity that has been going on for years that the MOJ owns the greens, the lampposts and the public lighting on the Springhill Road estate adjacent to HMP Spring Hill, even though they are of no use to the MOJ and there is no benefit to the prison estate. The residents’ association is willing to take those greens and care for them, so that kids can play on them and residents can use them. Will the Minister look again at getting the land transferred, because it is of no benefit to him or his Department?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Under the last Government, only 500 prison places were created. By contrast, the last Labour Government delivered 27,830. The Lord Chancellor has set out her ambition to deliver 14,000 new places by 2031. Almost 1,500 of those will be provided by the new prison in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If he writes to me about the specific concerns of the residents’ association, I will be happy to respond.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The decision to remand or bail an individual is solely a matter for the independent judiciary. Courts are required to considered the likelihood of absconding as part of that decision. The courts have the power to impose a broad range of robust bail conditions in the bail package, including electronic monitoring, exclusion zones and curfews. This Government are committed to ensuring that criminals face justice and victims have peace of mind and closure.
Robbie Moore
After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child rapes in my constituency, I would like to be able to inform the Secretary of State that all those men were now serving their just punishment. However, two of them absconded from their trial and are believed to be abroad. Their exact whereabouts are an open secret in Keighley. It is a shocking failure of the justice system that those men are still walking free. Does the Minister agree that if a dual or foreign national is charged with disgusting child rape crimes, courts should be required to put terms on their bail that prevent them from leaving the country during their trial, so that they cannot walk free after their horrendous, heinous crimes?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I understand that the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place under the last Government, and the men he referred to were tried in absentia. The Home Secretary set out the steps that the Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based child sexual exploitation. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, to ensure that it is properly reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Government recognise just how important accessing transcripts can be for certain victims. That is why transcripts of sentencing remarks are available free of charge to the families of victims of fatal road offences, murder and manslaughter. It is also why this Government are running a one-year pilot that offers free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences. That is due to conclude in May. We are also looking in the round at how we lower the cost of obtaining a court transcript through increased use of technology.
Liz Jarvis
The previous Government launched a pilot scheme to provide free sentencing remarks to victims of sexual violence. However, thousands of eligible survivors only found out about it months after it started. Poor communication meant that victims missed out on the opportunity for some closure. Will the Justice Secretary confirm whether the pilot has been properly evaluated, whether its findings will be made public, and what steps will be taken to improve awareness and accessibility for those who need to use the scheme?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right that initially there was not enough uptake. The Government acted to drum up awareness of the scheme precisely because we want to test its effectiveness for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. I reassure her that application numbers are up. We are conducting the evaluation, and once we have the results, we will be able to test whether we can implement the scheme in the future.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim support services to help victims recover from the impact of crime, including knife crime. The Government have committed to the creation of a new programme, Young Futures, which will offer support to children who are at risk of being drawn into crime in a more systemic way.
Richard Baker
Does the Minister agree that the support she has outlined for the victims of knife crime will continue to be essential in our justice system, and that it is essential to work alongside devolved Administrations to raise awareness of the tragic impact of knife crime on communities across the UK? Communities in Glenrothes and Mid Fife feel particularly strongly about knife crime, and about the sale of knives online, following deeply concerning knife offences involving young people.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. As a Member of Parliament representing a devolved nation, I wholly agree. It is important that we work across the board to tackle this issue, which is not solely about England; all of us must do better. The Government are taking firm action and putting in place stronger consequences for carrying a knife. They are also cracking down on the sale of dangerous knives, and have announced Ronan’s law, a range of measures that will include stricter rules for online retailers selling knives.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to address knife crime, and anything that can be done to reduce the number of young people who are drawn into this type of violence. How will the new offence of possessing a knife with violent intent differ from existing legislation relating to possession of an article with a blade or point, or possession of an offensive weapon? How far will the law go when it comes to proving intent? Will it refer only to the posture of the individual when arrested—for example, they may have been caught in the act of a machete-style fight—or will it have regard to other factors, such as someone appearing in a scoreboard video on social media?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question. My understanding is that the hon. Member is a member of the Crime and Policing Bill Committee that will be scrutinising the legislation.
Alex Davies-Jones
Is he not? I will welcome engagement with him, though, and his scrutiny as the legislation progresses through the House. The Government are increasing penalties for illegal sales of knives, and are funding a new online police co-ordination hub, which will take action against illegal knife and weapon content online. We also intend to consult later this year on the registration scheme for the online selling of knives. A lot of work is being done in this space, and I look forward to engaging with him further on it.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
First, I want to acknowledge something horrific that happened in my constituency over the weekend. In Talbot Green, my constituent Joanne Penney was tragically shot and killed on Sunday night. I pay tribute to the police, who took swift action, and my thoughts are of course with the victim, her friends and her family. She will be mourned by our whole community. Her loss has been deeply felt.
The Government have made an unprecedented commitment to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. That is underpinned by our new strategy, which will be published shortly. We have introduced new offences of creating deepfake intimate images and taking intimate images without consent. We have also launched a new domestic abuse protection order in selected areas, including in Cleveland just last week, and we are determined to do more.
Katie White
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the Minister’s constituent Joanne, and I am sorry for that loss. The scale of violence against women and girls in my constituency of Leeds North West and across the country is intolerable. Our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade, which the Minister mentioned, is much needed and ambitious. How will her Department contribute to delivering this critical commitment? Specifically, what steps does her Department plan to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases, and to support victims of domestic abuse?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government are determined to meet our ambitious target of halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. I proudly co-chair our cross-Government working group with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to look at how we can bring every Government Department to the table. This issue is not just for the Ministry of Justice or Home Office to tackle; the onus is on all of us—every Department and all of society—to do better if we are to reach the target.
We have funded a record number of Crown court sitting days to hit the backlog and tackle it head-on. The majority of domestic abuse cases are heard in the magistrates court, and we are determined to do more to reach vulnerable victims.
Adam Thompson
May I thank the Minister for her answer, and also extend my thoughts to Joanne’s family and friends?
In recent years, women and girls have increasingly expressed distrust in the ability of the justice system to resolve cases of violence and sexual harassment, as so few of those events result in prosecution. What steps is the Minister taking to restore trust in the justice system, so that my constituents in Erewash know that they have somewhere to turn when they are targeted by such hate crimes?
Alex Davies-Jones
As part of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have committed to improving confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We will introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force, as well as domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms. We will also give victims of adult rape access to an independent legal adviser to help them understand and uphold their rights from day one. I want every victim, whether in Erewash or in Pontypridd, to know that they are heard, and that this Government support them.
Patrick Hurley
May I associate myself with colleagues’ comments about the tragic events in the Minister’s constituency?
Back in 2021, a young woman in my constituency was the victim of an alleged assault. Even now, in 2025, she advises that there has been no trial, and she worries that she could run into the accused around town. What can be done to expedite such cases in which violence is alleged, to better protect our citizens and ensure that our streets are safe from crime?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government are committed to bearing down on the caseload and bringing waiting times down for victims. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up time for the Crown courts, so that they can hear the most serious cases. We have also commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once-in-a-generation reforms to our criminal courts, and we look forward to receiving his report in the spring.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I recently met a distressed constituent who escaped a very abusive marriage, only for the courts to order a financial settlement that allows her ex-husband to still exert financial control over her. I was shocked to discover that the financial remedies court relies on outdated legislation—the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which does not allow domestic abuse to be taken into consideration in a settlement. What consideration has the Minister given to the Law Commission’s recent scoping report on the issue, which recommends significant reform?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are determined to tackle all forms of abuse, including financial abuse. I am aware of the report that the hon. Lady mentions. We are considering the findings closely, and will report back soon.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I went to visit a lady in Ashfield who had been beaten black and blue and then locked in a cupboard by her boyfriend. He was arrested and she made a statement, but because of his controlling behaviour in the relationship—he was in control of the finances and was also her employer—she had him back. When she finally had the courage to kick him out, the police would not prosecute the man. What can this Government do to ensure that women who are victims of these animals can go to the police at any time, even when their partner has gone?
Alex Davies-Jones
I apologise for the horrific circumstances that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent found herself in; that is intolerable, and no victim in our country—no woman or girl—should ever feel that way. If he wants to write to me with the specifics of the case, I will gladly look into it more closely. This Government are determined to restore faith and justice in the criminal justice system as a whole: in policing, our courts, our probation service—every element of it, from the bottom up and the top down. I look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman on that case.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The impact of Crown court delays on victims, victims’ services and the wider criminal justice system is troubling to many. One of many affected Wokingham residents is a survivor of domestic violence and sexual assault that began three decades ago. She has had numerous court hearings adjourned. Will the Minister tell my constituents how these injustices will be ended?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record Crown court caseloads that continue to rise. That has had an impact on far too many victims, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that Crown courts can focus specifically on serious crimes. We are committed to bearing down on that caseload and bringing waiting times down, while also protecting victims’ funding and introducing domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims in pilot areas.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I start by associating myself with the comments made at the beginning in relation to Joanne. So many victims and survivors rely on the victim contact scheme to know when their abuser is being released from prison or moved to an open prison and to have input into the kind of conditions that should exist when they are released. However, the system that we have inherited from the last Government is such that only survivors whose abusers have been convicted for more than 12 months qualify for the scheme. In the upcoming Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, will the Minister commit to scrapping that threshold so that all victims and survivors can qualify for the scheme?
Alex Davies-Jones
We are looking carefully at the victim notification scheme as part of any forthcoming legislation, to ensure that victims’ rights are taken into full consideration and that victims are aware of the situation if that is deemed appropriate. I look forward to working with them closely, and I have no doubts about how we should develop the best and strongest possible laws to support the victims of all crimes in our country.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The Ministry of Justice recognises the benefits of mentoring in resettlement and is currently reviewing our approach to peer mentoring to make sure it is consistent and effective. There are many excellent organisations delivering a range of peer-led rehabilitation support, including Ingeus, Wizer and the Wise Group.
Bobby Dean
At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, I had two fantastic volunteers show up from Sutton Night Watch, a local homeless charity. They had been working with prisoners, both before and after they left their cells, to help them reintegrate into the community. They are doing fantastic work, but they now need to expand. They need more space and more people. Can the Minister explain what support is available to volunteers like them to help them to do their work with prisoners?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I applaud the work that the hon. Member describes. It is certainly the sort of work that needs to continue. Overall, the levels of homelessness and rough sleeping that we have inherited are far too high. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to end homelessness. If he wishes to write to me about that particular case, I will follow it up.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his identification of these very good actions that are going on within the prison estate. The Prison Service is keen to encourage all this sort of activity, and I will follow this up with my hon. Friend directly.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the efforts to help prison leavers to reintegrate, but I am concerned that this Government will soon be keeping people out of prison who should be there as part of their proper punishment for offending. The Government commissioned a sentencing review running on that very premise, and that review recently released its interim report. Can the Minister point to anywhere in that entire 65-page report that has anything to say about the evidence of what victims want?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The sentencing review’s interim report describes the situation at the moment, and it is the first stage of that independent review’s addressing this long-standing issue. Frankly, this is something that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years avoiding tackling. That is—[Interruption.] I will leave it there.
Dr Mullan
The House will have heard very starkly that the Minister did not offer me any clarity. I can help him by telling him that there is not one word anywhere on the expectations of victims of crime and their families—[Interruption.] Not one word. Worse than that, it cherry-picks evidence from reports to support a narrative that an ill-informed public do not know what they want and do not understand. Does the Minister agree that for that review to have any credibility whatsoever, it must engage seriously with what victims and the public want when it comes to the use of prison for the punishment of serious offenders?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We heard fully the commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Lord Chancellor that victims are front and centre of our approach to fixing the mess that the Conservatives left us. There is a victims representative on the panel, as the hon. Member well knows. Victims were fully involved and engaged in this. I have sadly met too many victims in this role, and I have encouraged all of them to contribute to the report and committed to them that they will be fully involved in the implementation of the report. Instead of carping from the sidelines trying to get cheap soundbites, it is about time the Conservatives rolled their sleeves up and tried to help us sort out their mess.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The judiciary prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes those involving domestic abuse. Most domestic abuse cases are heard in magistrates courts, where cases tend to be heard more quickly. As I have already stated, the Government have taken action to address the outstanding caseload in the Crown court, funding record levels of sitting days in the upcoming financial year.
Paula Barker
The backlog in the court system harms efforts to instil confidence in women persisting with domestic violence charges against their abusers. Violence against women and girls is a national scandal, and femicide is ongoing, with countless women losing their lives to male violence. Sadly, my region of Merseyside is now the second highest region in the country for femicide. Does the Department agree that any moves to fast-track cases via the criminal or civil courts to remove abusers from our streets must involve appropriately severe sentences, irrespective of the prison places crisis?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important and timely question. We take all forms of homicide extremely seriously, and our strategy, which will be published later this week, looking at tackling violence against women and girls will cover all forms of violence and abuse that disproportionately impact women, including femicide. We will of course prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we have funded record numbers of Crown court sitting days. We are extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and strengthening the victims code. We have protected funding for victims services looking at domestic abuse, rape and sexual offences to ensure that victims are listened to and are put at the heart of the criminal justice system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For last week’s International Women’s Day, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the names of the 96 women who were killed in the last year. I am always conscious of the loss of life, as I know the Minister is. If domestic violence today is the violence against women and murder tomorrow, what can be done to support women and their children?
Alex Davies-Jones
We are doing everything we can to support women and their children. We have declared this a national emergency, and we have that ambition of targeting and halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. My personal ambition is that the names read out at this Dispatch Box next year are far fewer than the ones read out this year.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited prisons in crisis: overcrowded, violent and rife with drugs. If we are to have regimes that reduce reoffending and cut crime, we have to crack down on drugs in prison. To do so, we must address the supply of drugs, and prisons use a range of tactics, including X-ray body scanners and baggage scanners. We must also tackle demand. Over 80 of our prisons now have drug-free wings.
Dr Evans
Before 2021, less than 1% of seized substances contained anabolic steroids. In 2023, it was 10%, with anabolic steroids being the third most prevalent drug class detected in Scottish prisons. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and Dr Jayasena and Dr Grant, who are national leads on the topic from Imperial College, to look at conducting research into the impact of steroids on offending and the prison population?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his long record of campaigning on this particular issue. It is an important point, and I will ensure that he can meet the Prisons Minister and look at what further research might be needed in this area.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The Government’s plan to support women offenders is clear and ambitious. To reduce the number of women going to prison, our new women’s justice board will support the implementation of the plan. This Government have taken immediate action to ensure that girls will never again be held in youth offender institutions following the publication last week of Susannah Hancock’s review into girls in the youth estate.
Liz Twist
Self-harm in prisons is now at the highest rate ever recorded. In women’s prisons, the rates are eight times higher than in men’s prisons—shockingly, one in three female prisoners has self-harmed. Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about those figures, and what is the Department doing to tackle that issue effectively?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about that issue, which she is right to raise. Good relationships between staff and prisoners are essential in our efforts to identify and manage the risks of suicide and self-harm. We are providing specialist support to establishments rolling out tailored investments, including specialised training for new officers, recruiting psychologists to support women, and piloting a compassion-focused therapy group designed for women.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I will not pre-empt the final report of the sentencing review, but let us remember the crisis that we are dealing with. The previous Government ramped up sentences but added just 500 cells throughout the entire time they were in office. Just today, we have heard examples of Members who do not want any prison building in their areas. This Government will build 14,000 new prison places, but even that will not be enough to get us out of the mess left by the previous Administration. That is why I have asked the independent sentencing review to recommend sentencing policies that will ensure that we never again run out of space.
Joe Robertson
The Government will consider alternatives to prison and early release, but how are the public to have any confidence whatsoever when the Government released prisoners early and left them to roam the streets for eight weeks before fixing tags?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said in answer to an earlier question, we are holding Serco to account, and we ensured that the tagging backlog from the changes to SDS40—standard determinate sentences—was cleared as quickly as possible. We have levied financial penalties against that company. We continue to monitor performance and will not hesitate to take further action if we need to. Conservative Members have to wake up to the reality of their own track record in government: they failed to build the prison places that we needed to keep up with the sentences that they kept imposing, which has left us with an almighty mess to clear up. We are getting on with the job.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The independent sentencing review and the Justice Secretary have been taking inspiration from Texas when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. She might be aware that Texas has a dedicated set of domestic abuse aggravated offences to help protect and respect survivors. Will she support me and Liberal Democrat colleagues in introducing proposals to the Crime and Policing Bill in order to make similar changes to the law in England and Wales?
Shabana Mahmood
I have not yet seen the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, which may be on their way, but I will look at them carefully. He will know that the picture is complex. Even jurisdictions with a catch-all domestic abuse offence face issues ensuring that it keeps up with the type of behaviour that they are trying to stamp out, and that other offences do not fall off, so there are technical issues in how such law works in practice. I would be happy to have further such conversations with him. I know this matter is of great interest to him and to Members across the House.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We are determined to keep victims safe both offline and online. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have introduced offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent, and in the Data (Use and Access) Bill we are criminalising creating or asking someone to create deepfake intimate images without consent. Together with existing offences on sharing intimate images, those measures give law enforcement a comprehensive package to tackle all aspects of that degrading and abusive behaviour.
Joe Morris
I pay tribute to the Minister for the work being done. Although that work is welcome, we need to direct our attention towards ensuring that police have the necessary technical tools to investigate reports. Will she meet me to discuss what further action can be taken to address and prevent intimate image abuse in all our communities?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily meet my hon. Friend, but let me reassure him: we are launching within policing our national centre for violence against women and girls and public protection—that includes a £2 million funding settlement to target violence against women and girls better, including online—and in November, we launched our domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas to improve protection for victims of all kinds of domestic abuse, including online. The police are also able to use stalking protection orders to protect victims of online abuse.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
This Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. Under the last Government, in 14 years only 500 prison places were produced. Under the last Labour Government, there was a net increase of 27,830 prison places in 13 years. We are redoubling our efforts to match that number.
Lewis Atkinson
The prison capacity crisis that this Government inherited has resulted in persistent offenders not feeling the deterrent effect of a custody option being realistically available. Can the Minister tell us how this Government’s prison building plans will restore a level of deterrence to the system and ensure that capacity is available in time to remove active offenders from the streets?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Where they were blocking, we are building, building, building. HMP Millsike, the UK’s first all-electric prison, will open in just a few weeks and deliver 1,500 places. Just last week, the Prisons Minister in the other place attended a groundbreaking at HMP Highpoint, and we have already secured full planning permission for a new prison in Leicestershire and outline planning permission for a new prison in Buckinghamshire. We are getting on with the job.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will know that the increase in prisoner numbers is often because of the logjam within the Crown court system, and there are too many on remand who are then convicted and released with time served, with no opportunity for rehabilitation or mentoring. Will he confirm that that forms part of the sentencing review or the Leveson review?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
That is why we are doing this big system relook. The right hon. Member is right to draw attention to this. We are going to tackle it and sort it out.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to the terrible legacy we inherited from the previous Government. The Prisons Minister in the other place has personally visited three of the prisons that have recently received urgent notifications—Wandsworth, Winchester and Manchester—and plans to visit the fourth as soon as possible. He has strengthened the UN process and meets regularly with governors and senior officials to challenge them and assure himself that sufficient progress is being made.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for that answer. Prison officers do an important job, and I thank every officer at Downview Prison in Banstead. It is extremely concerning that the number of assaults on staff at Downview more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. What steps is he taking to ensure that officers are protected in their day-to-day jobs?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As the hon. Member rightly says, prison officers do an outstanding job. The work of the Prison Service is to make sure they are properly supported and protected in that role, and that is what is going on.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The last Government left a mess in every single corner of our justice system—our criminal courts and our civil courts. In the process, they let down not just victims of crime but businesses, employees, employers and children in care; every part of our system was left in a complete mess. That is what we are sorting out, with record Crown court sitting days—a commitment of 110,000 sitting days—and running almost to a maximum across all jurisdictions to bring down the backlog. We are sorting out the mess that we were left with.
Mr Dillon
I agree with the Minister’s assessment of the previous Conservative Government. However, with more than 382,000 cases still in the backlog for magistrates, have the Government done an assessment of whether that will increase, given the doubled sentencing powers that have been passed down to those courts?
Sarah Sackman
The magistrates court is being run in a sustainable way. We extended the sentencing powers in order to free up capacity in the Crown court, and that has been sustainable, and we are increasing capacity in our magistracy by recruiting an additional 2,000 magistrates from diverse backgrounds every year. But that is why we are looking at system reform, whether in the magistrates court or the Crown courts. We are going to need once-in-a-generation reform, and when Sir Brian Leveson reports back, that is what we will get.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Shockingly, just 4% of rape and sexual offences reported to Derbyshire police in the last year resulted in a charge. When offenders are not prosecuted, victims understandably lose faith in our justice system. What steps has the Minister taken to reduce backlogs in Derbyshire courts so that justice can be served for these despicable crimes?
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear how long victims in my hon. Friend’s constituency are waiting. That is why we are taking urgent action to bear down on the Crown court backlog, not only by increasing sitting days this year, but by committing to record numbers of sitting days next year. Of course that will not be sufficient to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims, and that is why we need to hear from Sir Brian Leveson and implement reform in due course.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government are funding a record 110,000 Crown court sitting days, which is 4,000 more than the previous Government funded. To bring down the backlog we must embrace reform, and that is why I have launched an independent review into the efficiency of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. This Government will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Mrs Russell
In 2016, 120,000 cases were disposed of—concluded—in the Crown courts. That figure was never achieved again by the Conservative party, and by 2022 the figure was 17% lower. Conservative Members like to blame covid for everything, but there were problems in the system well before that. There has been a systematic failure to modernise processes in our courts for years, as we on the Justice Committee hear far too often. What more can we do to use technology to make our courts more efficient and, most importantly, ensure faster outcomes for victims?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to note the issue of falling disposals—in layman’s terms, the number of cases that are completed. The rate of disposals has indeed fallen in recent years, which why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson, as part of his review, to consider how we improve the efficiency of our courts, including further technical or AI-related reform that might assist cases to move more quickly through the system. We will need a three-pronged approach: more funding, which I have already delivered; once-in-a-generation reform, which Sir Brian Leveson is looking at; and going further and faster on productivity and efficiency in the system. That is how we will get swifter justice for victims.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The backlog in our criminal justice system means that offenders in my constituency are free to commit crime while waiting for the judicial process. I met Sussex police and residents last week and heard how the backlogs are making the already hard job of the police even harder, and residents’ lives a misery. How does the Secretary of State plan on tackling those backlogs, which are leading to offenders roaming free and more crimes being committed?
Shabana Mahmood
We are already tackling those issues, and as soon I came into office I increased the number of sitting days by 2,500 on what I inherited from the previous Administration. I have increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and increased funding for legal aid. Criminal legal aid underpins the whole system, and for the next financial year we are funding a record 110,000 Crown court sitting days. That, combined with once-in-a-generation reform of the courts to deal with the demand coming into the system, and going further on productivity and efficiency, is how we will deal with the problems that the hon. Member rightly notes.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Government inherited prisons on the point of collapse and a record and rising backlog in our courts. Eight months into office, the work of restoring justice in this country is well under way. Since the last Justice questions, I have announced record investment in our courts, and next year Crown courts will sit for up to 110,000 days, which is the highest allocation in recorded history. I have also announced vital reforms to the probation service, increasing its focus on medium and high-risk offenders, alongside recruiting 1,300 new probation officers.
I also visited Texas, where a tough and smart approach has reduced reoffending, cut crime to its lowest levels in the US since the 1960s, and brought its prison population under control. There is much that we will learn from that law and order state, particularly how we get offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. Through our plan for change, the Government are delivering swifter justice, using punishment to cut crime, and making our streets safer.
Mr Campbell
On average, more than 130 people every week across the UK die from drug-related causes. That is more than 6,500 families and homes devasted each year by that tragic loss of life, including more than 200 in Northern Ireland alone. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with each of the devolved Administrations to prioritise prevention and review enforcement against the use of all illegal substances?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Fixing the problems that he notes requires work by not just the Ministry of Justice, but the devolved Administrations and the Home Office. I will ensure that he can engage with the relevant Ministers on the issues he raises.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We recognise the unique and challenging role that prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as we work through this complex issue while considering the wider fiscal context. I am meeting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) to discuss this important issue next week, and I am very happy for my hon. Friend to join that meeting if he wishes.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Yesterday, the Sentencing Council issued a letter correcting the Justice Secretary. It made it clear that the new sentencing guidelines were not the same as the draft guidance under the last Government and explained that her Department supported the new two-tier guidance—her representative was at the meeting—and it was approved on 24 January. Her officials were even given a walkthrough on 3 March—a dummy’s guide to two-tier justice. After I brought that to her attention last Wednesday, her team briefed the papers that she was “incandescent”. Was she incandescent at her officials or at her own failure to read her papers and do her job properly?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Lord Chancellor’s amnesia continues, because he clearly has not done his homework; he has forgotten that his Government were consulted extensively on this guidance. It also appears that he cannot read, because the letter states very clearly all the consultation that took place under his Government. It shows that they were consulted numerous times on the new guidance and welcomed it—I notice that he did not refer to that. He knows full well that the change he refers to is a minor change, because the reference to race, ethnicity and cultural backgrounds has been retained in the time his Government seeing it and the changes that occurred, so he cannot hide behind that. The last few days have therefore been an expert lesson from the right hon. Gentleman: he has taught us all how to throw the shadow Transport Secretary under a bus.
Robert Jenrick
As a lawyer herself, I would have thought that the Justice Secretary would know the difference between the last set of guidance and the new one. I say “as a lawyer,” but in this Cabinet we never really know who is a real lawyer and who is just pretending to be one. In 21 days’ time, by the Justice Secretary’s own admission, we will have two-tier justice. Her plan to fix that will not come into effect for a year, and that is unacceptable. As she has been too lazy to do her job, I will do it for her. Today I am presenting a Bill to block these two-tier sentencing guidelines and fix her mess; it is here and ready to go. Will she support it? Will she stand with us on the Conservative Benches for equality under the law, or will it be two-tier justice with her and two-tier Keir?
Shabana Mahmood
The whole House can see that the only pretence at a job is the one that the shadow Lord Chancellor is making, because he is pretending to be the Leader of the Opposition. We all know exactly what he is about. My reaction to what has happened in relation to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines was very clear when I made the oral statement last week in this House: we will never stand for a two-tier approach to sentencing. I am actually getting on with fixing the problem, rather than looking for a bandwagon to jump on, which is why I have already written to the Sentencing Council. I will be meeting it later this week, and I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and its powers. If I need to legislate, I will do so, but I will ensure that whatever changes I bring forward are workable and deliver the fair justice system that we all need and deserve—one that his Government did not deliver.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
I notice that in all his references to letters, the shadow Lord Chancellor did not refer to the letter from the previous sentencing Minister, now the shadow Transport Secretary, who welcomed those guidelines. He knows full well that that was a reference to the guidelines around race, ethnicity and cultural background.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is why I set up the Women’s Justice Board specifically to make recommendations—I believe that these are policy choices that are properly made by directly elected politicians. We will make progress on the situation of women in our prisons, particularly those who are mothers, because we know that the harm passes down generations, and we are determined to stop it.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. As part of our manifesto, we committed to fast-tracking rape cases through the system. We are carefully considering the best way to do so, and we will be able to say more about our plans shortly. We are also creating independent legal advisers for adult rape victims, who will be able to access that support at any point from report to trial, so that they know their rights and their rights are protected.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that this Government have made faster progress than the previous Government on the deportation of foreign national offenders from our prisons, with numbers that are over 20% higher than the same time last year, and we will keep moving forward.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am sorry to hear about that tragic case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Encouraging or assisting suicide is an offence under the Suicide Act 1961, and sending communications that encourage or assist serious self-harm is an offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, but we are going to tighten up the law to address the situation that my hon. Friend has described. Of course, this is about not just the law, but the enforcement of the law as well.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Sarah Sackman
As the Lord Chancellor has said, our priority is delivering swifter justice for victims and bearing down on the Crown court backlog. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider all options, which have to include reclassification of offences and the intermediate court. We have to have a whole-system reform, but I fear that if we were to exclude those options, we would not be gripping the problem.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already set out exactly what I am going to do. I have written to the Sentencing Council, using the powers that I have to do so, and I will be meeting it later this week. I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and powers, and if I need to legislate, I will not hesitate to do so.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
One of my constituents has endured prolonged financial abuse due to drawn-out divorce financial order proceedings, which largely ignore domestic abuse except in rare cases. Will the Minister commit to reviewing financial settlement proceedings guidance to ensure that the impact of domestic abuse is properly considered, and to prevent the legal system from being used as a tool of continued coercion and control?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, and my thoughts are with his constituent as she navigates this difficulty. The Government will consider carefully the 2024 report on financial provision on divorce, in which the Law Commission looked into the specific issue of domestic abuse as a factor. Later this year the Government will consult on the delivery of our manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections of cohabiting couples, because all abuse is abuse, financial or otherwise.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When someone enters this country illegally from another country to which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously expressed support for terrorism and terrorist organisations, but not in this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State content that the Government have enough powers to protect the community from such a person walking free in our society?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I am discussing with the Home Secretary the full range of powers that we need to have at our disposal, and she has already made it clear that we will not hesitate to act further if we need to. However, it is important that we are able to deport offenders who pose a risk to our country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, at a Justice Committee hearing, it was confirmed that an effective probation service is essential to the rehabilitation of offenders and to prevent reoffending. However, over the years the service has been under immense strain owing to increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that probation officers have manageable caseloads, and that support is provided for their mental health and wellbeing to avoid high levels of stress and burnout, and also to help with the recruitment and retention of staff?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the probation service. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the chaotic running of the service under the last Government. We are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the probation reset policy and assessing its impact on workload capacity, the time saved, and the increased focus on individuals posing the highest risk to public safety. We recognise the significant pressure that probation officers have been under, which is why comprehensive wellbeing support models have been put in place across our services, including dedicated wellbeing leads for both prison and probation services.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that the families of British citizens who are murdered abroad have the same rights as the families of homicide victims in the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
I regularly meet both the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales and the London Victims’ Commissioner to consider all issues affecting victims and their families. We are strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner through legislation, we will be strengthening the victims code, and we will of course consider any other measures that are needed to protect victims and their families wherever they may be.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
On several occasions I have met my constituent Beverley, whose son suffered a horrific murder. He was stabbed more than 140 times. She has been desperately attempting to get hold of the court transcripts, but to no avail. Will Ministers please meet me to help this still grieving mum?
Sarah Sackman
I am really horrified to hear of that case. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the transcript of sentencing remarks should have been made available free of charge, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how transcripts of trials more broadly can be made available.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
On Radio 4’s “Today” programme last week, Matthew Ryder KC, who sits as a judge, praised the extreme helpfulness of pre-sentencing reports for passing effective sentences. Will the Secretary of State do as he asks and endorse the importance, value and independence of the Sentencing Council?
Shabana Mahmood
We all agree across the House, I hope, that pre-sentencing reports play a vital role in ensuring that whoever is passing a sentence has all the relevant facts at their disposal. I do not believe that access to such reports, or whether a sentencer asks for them, should be dictated by race or ethnic background. They should be made available, and I would like to see more use of pre-sentencing reports across the board for every type of offender.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Manchester Metropolitan University estimates that over 1,000 people are convicted under joint enterprise each year, costing the taxpayer £1.2 billion. Does the Minister agree that we need to amend the law on joint enterprise to free up spaces in our prisons?
Shabana Mahmood
The law on joint enterprise has already developed somewhat since the previous Court of Appeal decision. I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is keeping under review how prosecuting decisions are made. At this point we have no plans to go further, but I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend can meet the relevant Minister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Across the United Kingdom, inquests are defined as being for the purpose of finding out who the deceased was, and how, when and where they died; they are not trials and they are not about assigning blame, even when they are extended into article 2 investigations. Yet in Northern Ireland we have had findings of blame in respect of SAS soldiers killing active terrorists. Does the Minister agree that the Crime and Policing Bill affords an opportunity, through suitable amendment, to bring uniformity to the operation of inquests across the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to confirm that an inquest should be an inquisitorial process. It should not be adversarial either. I will raise the issue that he has mentioned with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but what is deemed to be in scope of legislation is a matter for the House authorities and the Leader of the House.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Prison maintenance privatisation has been a complete and utter disaster. When will it be taken back in-house?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We are investing approximately £500 million over two years in prison and probation service maintenance to improve conditions across our estate, but it is fair to say we have inherited a system in serious need of repair. The estimated cost of bringing the prison estate to a fair condition and maintaining it till the end of the decade is £2.8 billion. The programme is now under way, and we hope that we will make as much progress as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports?
Shabana Mahmood
What I am shocked about is that we can see a disparity in the overall cohort sentencing outcomes. Everybody accepts that we are not quite sure why it is happening, and there has not been sufficient curiosity over the last few years to work out why that is the case. My view is that if we can see a problem or think we have one, we need to get to the bottom of what is actually going on before we start coming up with broad policy solutions to fix that problem. I also think that some of these broad policy decisions are better made by Ministers, because we are directly elected individuals who will pay the price for the consequences of our choices. That is a conversation that I will pick up with the Sentencing Council when we meet later this week.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
In 2020, Lorraine Cox was brutally murdered in Exeter. Her murderer dismembered her body, and as a result her family have never been able to fully lay Lorraine to rest. Her father, Tony Cox, has been campaigning for the implementation of Helen’s law 2, meaning that desecrating or concealing a body would become a separate criminal offence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss whether the implementation of Helen’s law 2 is possible?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member well knows, the solicitors profession is highly regulated. We have the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which itself is regulated by the Legal Services Board. All our professionals, whether they are practising in criminal or civil law, are highly respected and highly regulated, and we are indebted to them.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I was shocked to read the Sentencing Council’s response to the Secretary of State last night, with its arrogant tone. As she has said, this Parliament is sovereign, and the fact is that we have given too much power away to these unelected bodies in recent years. Can I reassure her of my support, and can she reassure me that she will not rest until we retain equality before the law?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend. I am very much looking forward to my meeting with the Sentencing Council later this week. As I have made clear, I am looking into the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The two-tier sentencing guidelines take effect on 1 April. If the Lord Chancellor is sincere about having a justice system that treats everyone equally, will she not support our Bill to block the guidelines?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already made my position clear. I have written to the Sentencing Council, and I will be meeting it later this week. I am reviewing the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last month, the Justice Committee heard evidence from governors of prisons with some of the highest drug use rates in the country. From detecting drones to body scanners and physical barriers, they all felt under-resourced in technology and investment. What is the Secretary of State doing to better equip prison staff to keep drugs out of prisons?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already pressed ahead with further measures on X-ray and baggage scanners, and we are taking action to deal with the problem of drones. My hon. Friend will be aware that, for security considerations, I am not going to give the detail of some of those mitigations and of our proposals for tackling drones, because they are used by those involved in serious organised crime. However, I can assure him that I, Ministers and all officials, including those working across the prison estate, are seized of this matter, and we are determined to crack down on drones bringing drugs into our prisons.
North Sea Vessel Collision
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the collision that occurred between two vessels off the east coast of Yorkshire yesterday. I want to begin by offering my sincere thanks to all those who are responding on the frontline, from His Majesty’s Coastguard to local emergency services. This is a challenging situation, and I know that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that the responders’ ongoing efforts are both brave and hugely appreciated. I also want to thank our international partners for their many offers of assistance to the UK and for the support from the maritime community.
This is a fast-moving situation, so let me set out the facts as I currently have them. At 9.47 am on Monday 10 March, the vessel MV Solong, sailing under the flag of Madeira, collided in the North sea with the anchored vessel MV Stena Immaculate, a fuel tanker sailing under the flag of the United States and operated by the US navy. The collision occurred approximately 13 nautical miles off the coast. Fire immediately broke out on both vessels and, after initial firefighting attempts were overwhelmed by the size and nature of the fire, both crews abandoned ship. Firefighting and search and rescue operations, co-ordinated by His Majesty’s Coastguard, continued throughout the day yesterday, pausing in the evening once darkness fell. Firefighting activity restarted this morning and I am pleased to say the fire on the Stena Immaculate appears to be extinguished, but the Solong continues to burn.
Although they became attached to each other during the collision, the Solong broke free of the Stena Immaculate late last night and began drifting southwards. Modelling suggests that, should the Solong remain afloat, it will remain clear of land for the next few hours. The assessment of HM Coastguard is, however, that it is unlikely the vessel will remain afloat. Tugboats are in the vicinity to ensure that the Solong remains away from the coast and to respond as the situation develops. I want to be clear that, while 1,000-metre temporary exclusion zones have been established around both vessels, maritime traffic through the Humber estuary is continuing.
The full crew of 23 on the MV Stena Immaculate are accounted for and on shore. One sailor was treated at the scene, but declined any further medical assistance. Thirteen of the 14 sailors of the MV Solong are accounted for. Search and rescue operations for the missing sailor continued throughout yesterday, but were called off yesterday evening at the point at which the chances of their survival had unfortunately significantly diminished. Our working assumption is, very sadly, that the sailor is deceased. The coastguard has informed the company, and it has been advised to inform the next of kin. Our thoughts are with the sailor’s loved ones at this time.
Regarding the cargo on the vessels, the MV Stena was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel, which was the source of the fire. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working at pace to determine exactly what cargo the Solong is carrying. I am aware of media reporting about potential hazardous materials on board, but we are unable to confirm that at this time. However, counter-pollution measures and assets are already in place, and both vessels are being closely monitored for structural integrity.
A tactical co-ordination group has been established through the Humber and Lincolnshire local resilience forum. The marine accident investigation branch has deployed to the site and begun its investigation. The MCA is rapidly developing a plan to salvage the vessels, once it is safe to do so. The Department for Transport will continue working closely with the Cabinet Office, other Government agencies and the resilience forum on the response.
Colleagues across the House will appreciate that the situation is still unfolding as I speak. I will try to answer questions from hon. Members with as much detail as possible and with the latest information I have at my disposal. I commend this statement to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Yesterday morning, shortly before 10 am, the container ship MV Solong collided with the oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North sea off the coast of Yorkshire. The Stena Immaculate was on a short-term charter to the US navy’s military sealift command and was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel. The Minister has not formally confirmed the cargo of the Solong, a Madeira-flagged vessel, but it has been widely reported that it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide. I listened to the statement carefully, but can the Minister confirm that that is now not his understanding?
The collision and the resulting spill are deeply concerning. However, before questioning the Minister on the Government’s response, I join him in paying tribute to HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the emergency services, and all others who helped to respond to the incident. As the Minister noted, the emergency services were on the scene swiftly and their actions saved many lives. Approaching fiercely burning vessels with a risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them.
I am grateful for the confirmation that all mariners from the Stena Immaculate have been recovered without injury, and that 13 of the 14 crew members from the Solong have been brought safely ashore. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and colleagues of the missing member of that crew. I understand that the search for life has concluded, but can the Minister update the House on the efforts being made to recover that mariner?
Turning to the collision itself, the Minister confirmed that early investigations do not point to foul play, but will he commit to remaining vigilant to ensure that any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Additionally, will he inform the House of the impact on the investigative process of the involvement of ships registered in both the US and Madeira? Have the Government contacted the respective Governments to ensure their close co-operation?
The Minister will be aware of the deep concern over the effect of the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment. Environmental organisations have warned of potentially devastating impacts of pollution from the tankers on the habitats and species in the area, including threatened seabird colonies, grey seals and fish, and nature-rich sites such as the Humber estuary, where conservationists have been restoring seagrass and oysters, could be devastated by this emergency. Has he been briefed by the Environment Agency on its response, and could he give us more details on it?
The Minister made reference to the drift of the Solong and the risk of it running aground without intervention. Can he update the House on the steps that will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? I understand that the marine accident investigation branch has begun a preliminary investigation into the emergency, and I am pleased that the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as it conducts an assessment on the counter-pollution response that may be required over the coming days. However, I seek assurances that the Government will engage closely with local communities, who will be concerned about the impact of the collision on their environment.
The incident involves multiple Departments spanning emergency response, environmental protection, maritime safety, defence and chemical transport regulation, and effective cross-Government co-ordination is therefore crucial. Will the Minister assure the House that such co-ordination is taking place and that Parliament will receive regular updates? It is, of course, too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage, but it is clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the highest standards of safety on the high seas.
Mike Kane
The shadow Minister is exactly right: something did go terribly wrong. My thoughts and prayers are with the missing sailor’s family. The company has been informed, and his next of kin are being informed.
In response to the series of questions the shadow Minister asked, we know for sure that the Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of Jet A-1 fuel, but we are yet to establish the cargo of the Solong; as soon as I know, I will make that information available to the House.
We will do everything to recover the body of the mariner. In a recent debate on emergency response services, we heard that though lives are lost at sea, some succour and comfort is given by the rescue services, who often bring people’s loved ones back to them for a proper funeral and burial.
Whether there was foul play is, I think, speculation; there is no evidence to suggest that at the moment. Through the MCA, we are in contact with our American and Portuguese counterparts and have liaised with them. On the counter-pollution measures that the shadow Minister mentioned, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures, which it will use at the necessary time. However, the immediate concern is to put out the fire on the Solong.
The shadow Minister mentioned the issue of drift. The Immaculate remains anchored, so we are safe there; it is the Solong that is drifting at 2 nautical miles per hour. It is currently being shadowed by two tugboats, and the order will be given by SOSREP or the MCA to intervene as and when necessary to protect life onshore.
The shadow Minister is right about the marine accident investigation branch. We have deployed those assets to the scene. They are currently working with the local resilience forum, and I want to pass on my thanks to the Humberside resilience forum at this time. I can assure him that Government agencies are working together effectively and have been giving Ministers and the Secretary of State regular updates through situation reports as the night went on and the day continues.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I endorse the Minister’s thanks to the frontline workers who have been involved, and his concern for and condolences to the missing mariner’s family. While we wait for the reports on how this appalling tragedy happened, which will have to be done, will the Minister confirm how routes are being managed while the Solong is drifting, and whether further protection of routes will be needed because of pollution in order not to delay further movement of shipping in these busy waters and to protect the welfare of seafarers in other ships?
Mike Kane
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for that question. It is an incredibly busy sea highway, as we all know. I had the great honour of visiting the command and control post of the Humber estuary on what was almost my last visit as shadow Maritime Minister just before the general election, and I pay tribute to the workers there for their hard work in dealing with this situation. I want to assure the Chair of the Transport Committee that the Immaculate was anchored; it is the Solong that is drifting. There is a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both vessels. Other assets are currently allowed to traverse the Humber estuary. If that changes, I will make that information available during the day.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for.
This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies.
I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated?
Mike Kane
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to maritime workers. Just as they kept us fed, fuelled and supplied all the way through covid, they keep our nation fed, fuelled and supplied every day of every week. I cannot commend them highly enough.
I also join with him in paying tribute to the emergency services. This is difficult, hard work and they are doing an exceptional job in the circumstances. As I have said, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures in place. Once we get the fire on the Solong out, we will begin to assess the situation and deploy them. It is vital that we keep shipping lanes in the Humber estuary open as best we can as this continues, which is why we have placed a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both ships. Outside that, maritime vessels can operate normally—as normally as is possible in this circumstance.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his communication with me through this unfolding situation and everybody who has been involved in it. The situation is evolving minute by minute, and I pay tribute to the local RNLI, coastguard and emergency services for their rapid rescue response, and to the local community, who have been heavily involved in readying themselves for any potential ecological or environmental fallout from this incident.
As the Minister may be aware, Ernst Russ, which owns the Solong, has now put out a statement saying that it has been “misreported” that the hazardous chemical was on board the Solong, and that
“There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical,”
which it will continue to monitor. I wonder whether the Minister has had any success in tracking down the manifest for the Solong so that we can reassure my constituents and put their minds at ease as to exactly what was on that vessel. I would also like to know when the Minister is expecting the initial report from the marine accident investigation branch so that we can understand what on earth happened in this most extraordinary of events.
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for keeping in contact with me throughout the night and this morning. Just before the election, we both visited the command and control centre in her constituency to see the excellent facilities in place. I pay tribute to the Humberside local resilience forum, which is made up of the police, the fire and rescue team, local authorities, the Red Cross, the NHS, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the clinical commissioning group, the Royal Navy, police and crime commissioners, the ambulance service, Border Force, environmental agencies, the Ministry of Defence, ABP Humber Ports, the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency. Those teams are all working at pace to assess any risks to local people that may occur.
There have been many press reports on the manifest, but the facts are the facts. There were 220,000 barrels of A1 jet fuel on the Immaculate, and the MCA is working at pace to establish the cargo on the Solong, which sailed from Grangemouth. Hopefully, as soon as we have that information from the manifest, we will make it available to the House.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I join the Minister in saluting the heroic rescuers and mourning the loss of the seaman. Mr Speaker, you may share some of my frustration at the lack of communication with Members of this House regarding yesterday’s maritime disaster off the Holderness coast in my constituency. Apart from a brief phone call following my reaching out to the Secretary of State for Transport, I spoke to the leader of East Riding of Yorkshire council, the police and crime commissioner and local councillors. All were struggling to get information as to what was going on just miles off the coast. My constituents from Kilsney, Easington, Withernsea, Aldborough and beyond deserve better.
I must ask the Minister why it took so long for the local resilience forum to be set up. Is he confident that we have the proper structures of governance in place when a disaster such as this happens? How can we ensure that communications are improved? What work is being done to protect the puffins, wildlife and beaches in our area? And how can we ensure that the agencies responsible are held to account? Perhaps the Minister can comment on why he was missing in action yesterday. We would have loved to have heard not just from 24-hour rolling media but from a member of our own elected Government about what was happening with this terrible disaster.
Mike Kane
Mr Speaker, I was dealing with the situation—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The Secretary of State made a statement. We stood up the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and, within minutes, a response was ongoing. The right hon. Member had a call from a member of staff of the Secretary of State within an hour or two of the incident. He was kept fully informed. The local Humberside resilience forum was established. We deployed assets for marine protection at the site. I am not sure what he is asking for, but I am very proud of our agencies—both local and national—that have worked at pace to get us to where we are currently.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s timely statement and would like to associate myself with his praise for the swift response of the emergency services and the RNLI volunteers. Over recent years, fishermen along the east coast of Yorkshire, including Scarborough and Whitby, have battled to keep going against the background of the effects of the crustacean die-off. They are naturally extremely concerned by reports of jet fuel possibly leaking into the sea. I do appreciate that this is a fast-moving situation, but can my hon. Friend tell the House more about the counter-pollution measures that are in place and also how predicted weather conditions will affect the ongoing operation?
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Yes, I know that Members on the north-east coast from both sides of this House have been worried over a number of years about the crustacean die-off. There is a concern that jet oil could well be leaking into the sea, but every resource is being deployed by the MCA and other agencies to assess the extent of the pollution, and every resource will be deployed to clean up that pollution. I happen to be meeting fishermen organisations later in the week for separate reasons, so I hope to be able to update them with further information about their valuable trade at that time.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I have been in communication with Liberal Democrat councillors in the East Riding of Yorkshire and also the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday, the leader of the council, Mike Ross, raised the call for a rapid response from Government, and I really push the Minister to provide clarity on what exactly we should be seeing from a tactical co-ordination group and whether there is Government commitment to cover any environmental or economic impact. Moreover, what more support will we see down the line if there are long-term consequences as a result of the pollution?
Mike Kane
It is standard procedure to bring on board local resilience forums in any situation such as this. That has been done: the forum is up and running. I am grateful to all elected Members across the parties and hard-working councillors who will be involved in making sure that the best interests of the people of the Humber region are protected. We have currently deployed on site all the resources that are needed to contain the fire and to assess the environmental damage of any spillage. We will continue to make decisions in conjunction with the local resilience forum through the day and, I believe, for the rest of the week.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.
Mike Kane
As I have said, the MCA’s counter-pollution assets are being deployed at the scene. The RNLI, search and rescue and aviation have all been on site, although search and rescue has been stood down. Both vessels were also carrying marine heavy fuel oil. That is a present pollution risk should either vessel sink or break apart.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement today and echo his comments about the missing sailor. I also add my thanks to all those who have been involved in the rescue operation, particularly those at the RNLI station in Bridlington. My constituents are rightly concerned about the potential environmental and ecological impact, not least because we have the biggest bird colony in mainland Britain, Bempton and Flamborough in Bridlington have the largest shellfish landing port in the UK, and we have around 5 million visitors to the area every year, enjoying the beaches from Bridlington down to Hornsea. Has the Minister yet had any assessment of the direction of any potential pollution and the role that currents and wind direction will play in where that pollution might eventually end up?
Mike Kane
The hon. Member is right to raise that. I had a conversation late last night on that subject with the Minister responsible for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). The Met Office has told us that theoretical models are used to plot potential movement of the smoke plume, which is similar to the way that it forecasts weather. Air quality monitoring can be done by onshore monitoring stations, such as the one at Immingham, which is closest to the site. The immediate concern is to stop the fire so that we can assess the pollution. As soon as the fire is out, inspectors can move nearer or move in to assess the extent of the spill—if there is a spill—and then we can begin to deploy the relevant resources to tackle that spill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My constituency is on the north-east coast, probably about 150 miles from this horrendous disaster. Can the Minister say whether there has been an initial assessment on how it happened and where the pollution might move to? Is there a potential threat to the coastline of the north-east of England?
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, the Met Office is modelling the wind situation at the moment. We need to get the fire out on the Solong. Once that is done, we can make a further assessment of what is required and in which direction any pollution—if there is any—is moving, and we will deploy our assets to tackle that when we know that for sure.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is just over 32 years now since the MV Braer was grounded off Shetland, but for us the memories are still very fresh. We know exactly how those communities on the east coast of England who are braced for what may be coming will feel. We might not know what happened, but we can be pretty certain that at some time, somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen, such is the nature of shipping and how it is regulated and owned across the world.
In Shetland we have been warning for years of the dangers of tankers anchored right by our shoreline and of others entering areas that are marked on the chart as to be avoided, but it is next to impossible to get any agency to take ownership of that. I know that the Minister is concerned about this, so can we use this moment to take a serious look at how we protect our coastal and island communities?
Mike Kane
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He has raised with me the issue of tankers moored off Shetland and Orkney. I understand that the 1972 collision regulations state that there has to be proper sight and sound lookout and all other methods, so something has gone wrong. As difficult as it is to say, accidents always provide an opportunity to see how we can do things better. I hope that when the marine accident investigation branch comes back with both its initial and its substantive findings, which will come to my desk, we can learn the lessons of this accident.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I join others in praising the emergency services, and I also praise Martyn Boyers and his colleagues from Port of Grimsby East, who supported the emergency services. Obviously, the concern at the moment is extinguishing the fire, but there will be a potential longer-term impact on the local community, inasmuch as there will be pollution and the like on the beaches. Will the Minister and other Departments work closely with the council and other agencies to ensure that any support that is needed will be available?
Mike Kane
The hon. Member has the Port of Immingham in his constituency, where the Immaculate was waiting to unload its cargo when a berth came available. I can assure him that the MCA is on stand-by. It has marine and aerial logistics in place to assess any potential pollution spill. If there is one, we will tackle it, but as I said, the priority is to extinguish the fire on the Solong .
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We congratulate everyone involved. It is worth remembering the voluntary nature of so many of the emergency services and the RNLI. The volunteers from the RNLI Skegness rushed out of their homes and businesses to man the lifeboat, which was away for almost 11 hours, putting themselves in harm’s way with extraordinary bravery. We should never forget that.
Mike Kane
The hon. Member should brace himself for what I am about to say: he acted with honour this weekend, relating to my circumstances, with his former party member, and I am grateful to him. He is exactly right. Our emergency services are second to none, as are our volunteers who help His Majesty’s Coastguard and the RNLI. These men and women risked their lives braving the seas, the winds, the temperature and the fog, to go and do what they could at the scene yesterday. I have nothing but the highest praise for them.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My constituency has the Norfolk coast area of outstanding natural beauty and other vital habitats, including the Wash, as well as a fishing fleet. Given the location of the collision, there is local concern about the potential impact. When will a risk assessment be done on the potential risk of pollution down the east coast to Norfolk? What action is being taken to contain it? Will the Minister commit to keeping the public informed?
Mike Kane
MCA assets are being deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impacts of this accident. The hon. Gentleman is right that the area is richly biodiverse. The priority remains extinguishing the fire on the Solong, so that we can properly evaluate the situation. Once we get that done, we will use every resource possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution, and to clear it up.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Let me put on record my thanks and appreciation to the resilience team at North Norfolk district council and its staff, and the port of Wells for its response and preparedness. It is not instantly clear what areas will be affected, and with changing winds and weather conditions, pollution can change course. North Norfolk is 50 nautical miles away from the incident and is currently predicted to be unaffected, but we are keeping a close eye on what happens. Will the Minister confirm that he will keep all MPs along the North sea coastline updated on developments? Will he also confirm that if pollution is set to reach North Norfolk, my fishing communities will get as much notice as possible? They have well-rehearsed plans in place, but they need good notice in order to deploy them.
Mike Kane
The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Automatic identification systems and radar should mean that these sorts of things do not happen, even in dense fog, which is why many of us thought initially that this could well be a maritime 9/11-type event, or that a malign state actor could be involved. Fortunately, that appears not to be the case, but the event has exposed a vulnerability, and ships like the Stena Immaculate could be said to be sitting ducks. What audit will the Minister do of that vulnerability? Will he put in place what is practically necessary to prevent such occurrences?
Mike Kane
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. In addition to having maritime responsibilities, I am the security Minister for the Department of Transport. We will learn any maritime security lessons from this incident, in terms of malign actors, and we will implement any recommendations.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Has the Minister been in contact with the Scottish Government, notably about the Solong’s port of origin? Clearly, it is in significant danger of sinking, and has containers on board. If any of those containers break loose and get washed up on shore, widespread and firm public information about the dangers of approaching any containers will be vital, given the hazardous substances in some of them.
Mike Kane
Responsibility for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is reserved to me, and it covers the United Kingdom. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On his second question, I do not want to speculate on the cargo of the Solong until I have the facts confirmed by officials, and I will then let the House know appropriately.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the clarity of his statement and his answers. Is it not extraordinary that there is such uncertainty about whether so deadly a cargo as sodium cyanide was being carried on one of the vessels? He said that tugs might have to intervene to prevent the vessel running aground on the shores of this country. Has he considered that if the fire is too dangerous for the tugs to approach, then in those extreme circumstances, the Royal Navy’s involvement might be necessary?
Mike Kane
We are a proud maritime nation, and we have the maritime skills to transport all sorts of hazardous substances, if need be, to our island nation. We have the skills, the people, the ports, and the shipping lines to do that. I ask the right hon. Member not to speculate on what was on the Solong, because that has not been established. There have been multiple press reports, and once I know for sure, I will inform the House appropriately. I remind the whole House that the United Kingdom is a world leader in maritime insurance. This is what we do. We trade, bringing goods and services across the world, and we insure those goods and services. We should all be proud of both our maritime sector and the insurance sector.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I too pay tribute to everyone involved in the emergency response. Does the Minister share my deep concern that more than 24 hours after this collision, we still do not know what the cargo was on the MV Solong? Surely the insurance industry ought to know that, at the very least.
On the pollution, I understand that this incident may have taken place in or close to two marine protected areas. Are those areas affected? What is the plan for cleaning them up? The Minister mentioned that pollution measures are in waiting, but have not been implemented, because the priority is reducing the fire, but I understand that the Stena Immaculate—the one with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fuel oil—is no longer burning. What measures are being taken to tackle the pollution now? Speed is of the essence.
Mike Kane
I think the incident started at about 10 minutes to 10 yesterday, so we are only about 27 hours in. Within minutes, assets were stood up and the crews were brought safely home, except for one member of the Solong. We have assets in place to measure the pollution now, and those assets are being deployed where that is safe, but the priority remains getting the fire out on the Solong.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Several hon. Members have mentioned the effects on the marine environment, including endangered bird species such as puffins and kittiwakes, which are returning to colonies right now in places like the Isle of May in my constituency. What engagement is the Minister having with the charities and organisations who run those colonies? Secondly, following the question from the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) about the Scottish Government, if, as we fear, we see the worst- case scenario of pollution extending extensively, are there any plans for engagement between the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency?
Mike Kane
The environment is absolutely at the front of our mind. Once we get the fire out, we will make those impact assessments and take the appropriate measures to clean up pollution, if there is any. The Department is working across Government and with the local resilience forums. In the days ahead, once we have the impact assessments, we will liaise with partner agencies on the best way forward on bird, marine and fish protection and the environment.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those emergency services that responded, but the unknown—the cargo of the Solong—is a major concern to many in the Chamber, and many who are working to deal with the incident. What engagement on this issue has the Minister had with the UN’s International Maritime Organisation, which has responsibility for the safety and security of shipping, and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by shipping? What steps will be taken to learn from it? Will we engage with the IMO to ensure that all cargo at sea is known by someone?
Mike Kane
We are in discussions with the owners of both vessels. We know that the Solong was sailing from Grangemouth, and that it had a mixed cargo of containers. That is the only information available to me, and that information is being analysed. We are trying to ascertain more. I do not have information for the House at the moment, but as soon as I do, we will make it known. As I said, the Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of A-1 jet fuel. We can begin to prepare contingency plans with the information that we already have about the vessel.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his full statement, and I associate myself with remarks made about the potential loss of life and the communities affected. I understand that the priority is dealing with the immediate incident, and that there will be a full investigation by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch in due course. Given that the Royal Navy has deployed vessels to the North sea to monitor hostile states’ activities on and under the sea, will the Minister assure us that the Government and their agencies will undertake an assessment, so that we can be clear that there has been no foreign interference in this terrible accident?
Mike Kane
The answer is yes. The Ministry of Defence contacted me last night to say that it was ready and willing to be deployed, if required. So far, that has not been required, because we feel that there was no malign intent in this incident. However, as the hon. Member said, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will investigate and give me its initial findings as soon as humanly possible. I will read its final report—it is my duty to do so as maritime Minister—and we will take the matter from there. The hon. Member was right to raise that point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank all those who have responded; we owe them a debt. I also thank the Minister for his endeavours. I spoke to him yesterday about this. He has been assiduous and focused, and we in the House should put on record our thanks to him for all that he has done. Will he outline the steps that will be taken to investigate whether failings in visual observation, radar or the automated identification system led to this unexpected collision? How can we ensure that the long-term environmental effects of this devastating collision are dealt with in a co-ordinated manner?
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Member. May I update the House? No sign of pollution from the vessels is observed at this time. Monitoring is in place, and should the situation change, the assets in place will be used as needed. That is the latest information relayed to me. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. We have extraordinarily dedicated officials on site; they were deployed yesterday. They will survey the two vessels and report back to me with initial findings when they can. There will be a final report for sign-off on my desk at some stage. I am grateful for his support.
Point of Order
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, David Lawrence, a former Labour parliamentary candidate, put out a public statement saying that he was pleased to be
“invited to No. 10 for a preview of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill”,
a landmark piece of legislation yet to see the light of day in this House, despite a number of statements from Ministers about how significant and important it would be. May I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that important legislation deserving the scrutiny of Parliament is first seen in this House, not shared offline with Labour parliamentary candidates?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I assure the House that no one has had a preview? The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming to the House. Of course, we regularly consult stakeholders, but no one has had a preview before the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for that point of clarification.
Bills Presented
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Jo Stevens and Secretary Ian Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about infrastructure; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision for a scheme, administered by Natural England, for a nature restoration levy payable by developers; to make provision about development corporations; to make provision about the compulsory purchase of land; to make provision about environmental outcomes reports; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 196) with explanatory notes (Bill 196—EN).
Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robert Jenrick, supported by Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Rebecca Harris, Dr Kieran Mullan and Helen Grant, presented a Bill to provide that the Sentencing Council may not issue sentencing guidelines without the consent of the Secretary of State; to give the Secretary of State the power to amend sentencing guidelines prepared by the Sentencing Council before they are issued; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 197).
Financial Education
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Financial Education Bill 2024-26 View all Financial Education Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move, Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. Second day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about financial education; and for connected purposes.
Without that education, we are collectively creating the greatest financial crisis of our time. The problem, quite simply, is that we as a nation are not living within our means. There was once a sense that people had certain financial responsibilities: to save for a house, to save for retirement, to save for holidays or for a rainy day—but no more.
Two fifths of Brits have less than £1,000 in savings and, as a result, money has become synonymous with anxiety. How will we pay our bills, our mortgage, our tuition fees and even our meals? We have also ignored people’s anxieties about money for far too long, whether they be university students, apprentices or parents not eating to ensure that their children can. We have high expectations but low means.
An extraordinary and deeply depressing statistic is that 96% of young people worry about money every single day—yet we continue to spend, not least because it is so easy. Offers pop up on our screens every day, created by marketing wizards who know exactly where we are most vulnerable. They use our search history to whet our appetite for new books, video games, appliances and overseas trips. In a single click, we are committed and plunged further into the red.
Around 20 million people effectively pay on account, not to local shop owners who know them and live locally but through impersonal buy now, pay later schemes that bring with them all-too-easy extortionate rates of interest. The debt just keeps on growing. There is a solution, which is to treat the problem at source, through education. Young people need to understand how money works, the principle of saving and the dangers and opportunities of compound interest.
This is not a new idea. The coalition Government brought in financial education for secondary schools, and this Bill aims to consolidate that learning and extend provision to primary schools and tertiary education. Money habits are formed at an early age—indeed, from the age of seven—yet many school leavers remain in the dark. Fifty-five per cent of those employing apprentices are aware that many of their workers face financial difficulties.
The situation does not require extra resource, just extra creativity. In fact, it can bring the curriculum to life. In Finland, for example, money is incorporated into the teaching of all subjects. In maths lessons problems link to savings and debt, geography lessons explain the cost of deforestation on goods in the supermarket, and IT lessons explain the financial consequences of buying extra credit for a favourite video game.
This is not a party political matter. The Bill will reduce inequality and help explain the importance of property, the benefits of home ownership and a comfortable retirement, and what it takes to provide for one’s own family. I have spoken to bankers, teachers, children, parents, police, employers, councillors, accountants, magistrates and lawyers. Whatever their political persuasion, they all agree that money is the root of many of society’s problems, not least because people are increasingly unaware of how to manage it or what is possible through careful budgeting.
Schools should prepare young people for the adult world. Yet for all the focus on balancing an equation, there is no attention given to balancing one’s bank account, and for the many hours spent generating interest in past events, none is focused on meeting interest payments on a future loan or mortgage. We are sending our young people out into the world and putting them into the game of life without even teaching them the rules first.
Fifty per cent of the British public would fail an OECD financial literacy test. We rank alongside Thailand and Albania despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It is no wonder that only 1% of teachers believe their pupils possess adequate financial skills, or that 67% of young people do not feel confident planning for their financial future.
In my maiden speech, I focused on the importance of social mobility. We did not have much—I could not always attend school trips and we could not always have the heating on—but I found ways to save for the things that I wanted in life. In an age when many believe that the responsibility of toothbrushing should be handed to teachers, we cannot leave our entire financial future to materialise like magic and our economy to decay even faster than those young teeth.
As a country, we have to balance the books, and that starts by understanding the principles of money. That is why I and the sponsors of this Bill urge the House to give future generations the tools and the knowledge to avoid walking into financial ruin and to lead successful and prosperous lives, irrespective of their background.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Peter Bedford, Jerome Mayhew, Blake Stephenson, Josh Newbury, Mr Jonathan Brash, Sir Roger Gale, Shockat Adam, Wera Hobhouse, Ian Roome, Siân Berry, Lewis Cocking and Martin Vickers present the Bill.
Mr Peter Bedford accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed (Bill 195).
Employment Rights Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 21 October 2024 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
3. Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.—(Justin Madders.)
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - large print - (11 Mar 2025)
“Chapter 4A
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 33—Collective agreements: contracting out.
Government new clause 34—Collective redundancy consultation: protected period.
Government new clause 35—Duty to keep records relating to annual leave.
Government new clause 36—Extension of regulation of employment businesses.
Government new clause 37—Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body.
Government new clause 38—Agency workers who are not otherwise “workers”.
New clause 1—Domestic abuse victims’ leave—
“(1) Within twelve months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations entitling a worker who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work on leave under this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of a worker's entitlement to leave under this section; and
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that, where a worker is entitled to take leave under this section, that worker is entitled to―
(a) at least ten working days’ leave; and
(b) the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence.
(5) The regulations may―
(a) make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken;
(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances; and
(c) make consequential provision.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for statutory leave for victims of domestic abuse, with regulations providing for a minimum of ten days’ leave.
New clause 2—Domestic abuse: right not to suffer detriment—
“In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights not to suffer detriment), after section 47G, insert new section 47H—
‘Domestic abuse
(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer done on the ground that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―
(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or
(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from adverse treatment on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a person affected by domestic abuse.
New clause 3—Dismissal for reasons related to domestic abuse—
“In Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 99, insert—
‘99B Domestic abuse
(1) A worker who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―
(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or
(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from dismissal on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a victim or a person affected by domestic abuse.
New clause 4—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse—
“After section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 (employer duty to prevent sexual harassment of workers), insert—
‘40B Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse
(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their employment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse.
New clause 5—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse (contract workers)—
“After section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (contract workers), insert—
‘41A Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse
(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent a contract worker working for or on behalf of (A) from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their engagement.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent contract workers from experiencing domestic abuse.
New clause 6—Workplace contravention of Equality Act: obtaining information—
“(1) In this section—
(a) P is a worker who thinks that a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 has occurred in relation to P’s employment or working practices;
(b) R is P’s employer and P thinks that R is responsible for the contravention mentioned in paragraph (a).
(2) A Minister of the Crown must by order prescribe—
(a) forms by which P may question R on any matter which is or may be relevant to subsection (1);
(b) forms by which R may answer questions by P.
(3) A question by P or an answer by R is admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act (whether or not the question or answer is contained in a prescribed form).
(4) A court or tribunal may draw an inference from—
(a) a failure by R to answer a question by P before the end of the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which the question is served;
(b) an evasive or equivocal answer.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if—
(a) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all might have prejudiced a criminal matter;
(b) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all would have revealed the reason for not commencing or not continuing criminal proceedings;
(c) R’s answer is of a kind specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;
(d) R’s answer is given in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;
(e) R’s failure to answer occurs in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown.
(6) The reference to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule, insofar as it relates to employment or working practices.
(7) A Minister of the Crown may by order—
(a) prescribe the period within which a question must be served to be admissible under subsection (3);
(b) prescribe the manner in which a question by P, or an answer by R, may be served.
(8) This section—
(a) does not affect any other enactment or rule of law relating to interim or preliminary matters in proceedings before a county court, the sheriff or an employment tribunal, and
(b) has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law regulating the admissibility of evidence in such proceedings.”
This new clause would reintroduce, for workers in relation to employers, the right to statutory Discrimination Questionnaires pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 regarding age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief and marriage and civil partnership discrimination.
New clause 7—Protected paternity or parental partner leave—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of protected paternity or parental partner leave for all employees.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―
(a) the minimum duration for a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave;
(b) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave is protected, non-transferable and does not result in discrimination against the employee taking that leave;
(c) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave reduces the risk of employees experiencing discrimination as a result of being eligible for ordinary maternity leave; and
(d) the extent to which the costs to employers of protected paternity or parental partner leave should be reimbursed, in full or in part, and the manner in which this should be achieved.
(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must by regulations―
(a) introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave, ensuring that it is paid, protected and non-transferable;
(b) define the length of any period of protected paternity or parental partner leave under subsection (3)(a); and
(c) make provision for any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “protected” leave means leave during which an employer must not permit an employee who satisfies prescribed conditions to work; and
(b) “parental partner leave” means leave taken for the purposes of caring for a child, with the exception of maternity leave taken under sections 71 to 73 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), “discrimination” is defined according to sections 13 to 19 of the Equality Act 2010.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave, and require them to introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave by regulations at a subsequent date.
New clause 10—Carer’s leave: remuneration—
“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment” includes—
(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and
(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””
This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.
New clause 12—Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc—
“(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002—
(a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”; and
(b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.”
This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.
New clause 13—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”
This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.
New clause 14—Entitlement to paternity leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”,
(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”
(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.”
This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.
New clause 15—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—
“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute—
“103A Protected disclosure
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.””
This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.
New clause 16—Adoption pay: self-employed persons—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of “self-employed” and “contractors” shall be set out in regulations under this section.”
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
New clause 17—Meaning of “kinship care”—
“(1) This section defines “kinship care” for the purposes of sections 80EF to 80EI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section (Kinship care leave) of this Act).
(2) Kinship care describes an arrangement where a child is raised by a friend, relative or extended family member other than a parent.
(3) Subsections (4) to (9) set out the arrangements that are recognised as being types of kinship care.
(4) An arrangement where a child is adopted (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) by a friend, relative or extended family member (“kinship adoption”).
(5) An arrangement where—
(a) a child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989), and
(b) a friend, relative or extended family member of that child is approved by the local authority to be a foster carer for that child (“kinship foster care”).
(6) An arrangement created by a special guardianship order pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (“special guardianship”).
(7) An arrangement created by a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the court orders that a child is to live predominantly with a friend, relative or extended family member of that child (“kinship child arrangement”).
(8) An arrangement where a child is fostered privately (within the meaning of section 66 of the Children Act 1989) by a friend or extended family member (“private fostering arrangement”).
(9) Any other arrangement where a child is cared for, and provided with accommodation in their own home—
(a) by a relative of the child, other than—
(i) a parent of the child; or
(ii) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child; and
(b) where the arrangement has lasted, or is intended to last, for at least 28 days (“private family arrangement”).”
This new clause is subsequent to the new clause about kinship care leave.
New clause 18—Kinship care leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 80EE insert—
“Chapter 5
Kinship care leave
80EF Kinship care leave
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.
(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—
(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;
(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.
(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—
(a) at least one year, and
(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.
(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, “eligible kinship care arrangement” means—
(a) special guardianship,
(b) a kinship child arrangement,
(c) a private fostering arrangement, or
(d) a private family arrangement
within the meaning given by section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.
(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.
(7) In this section—
(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.
(b) “week” means any period of seven days.
80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave
(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—
(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,
(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and
(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—
(a) maternity leave,
(b) paternity leave,
(c) adoption leave,
(d) shared parental leave,
(e) parental leave,
(f) parental bereavement leave.
(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—
(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but
(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.
(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.
(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—
(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;
(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.
80EH Special cases
(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—
(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or
(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.
(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—
(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;
(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).
80EI Chapter 5: supplemental
(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—
(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;
(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;
(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;
(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);
(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;
(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;
(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;
(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;
(i) make consequential provision.
(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—
(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and
(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions, and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.””
This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.
New clause 20—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 21—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
New clause 22—Duty of employer to prepare domestic abuse policy—
“(1) It is the duty of every employer to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a written statement of its general policy with respect to the support it provides to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for determining—
(a) the scope of a domestic abuse policy;
(b) the form and manner in which a domestic abuse policy is to be published;
(c) when and how frequently a domestic abuse policy is to be published or revised;
(d) requirements for senior approval before a domestic abuse policy is published.
(3) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with subsection (1)—
(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales by a fine;
(ii) in Scotland or Northern Ireland by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as may be prescribed.
(4) The regulations may not require an employer to revise the policy more frequently than at intervals of 24 months.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘domestic abuse’ is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
(6) This section does not apply to an employer who has fewer than 5 employees.
(7) Regulations under this section must be made no later than twelve months after the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would create a duty on employers with 5 or more employees to have a policy outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.
New clause 23—Prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay—
“In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986, delete ‘is a weekly rate of £184.03’ and insert ‘is a rate of £12.60 per hour in the UK and £13.85 per hour in London’.”
This new clause would increase the current rate of statutory maternity pay, bringing it in line with the “real Living Wage”.
New clause 25—Working Time Council—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, establish a Working Time Council (‘the Council’) to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the matters specified in subsection (4).
(2) The members of the Council—
(a) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and
(b) must include representatives of—
(i) trade unions;
(ii) businesses;
(iii) government departments; and
(iv) experts on matters relating to employment.
(3) Each member of the Council must hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the member’s appointment.
(4) The Council must provide advice and make recommendations on how a transition could be made from a five-day working week to a four-day working week with no impact on pay, including—
(a) how such a transition would affect employers and employees, and
(b) how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition.
(5) The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Working Time Council to provide advice and recommendations on the transition from a five-day working week to a four-day working week.
New clause 27—Flexible working duties: reports on compliance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every six months, report on compliance with the duties under section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employer’s duties in relation to application for change to working hours, etc).
(2) The first report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.
(3) Each further report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of the last such report being published.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on employers’ compliance with the flexible working duties set out in this Bill.
New clause 30—Special constables: right to time off for public duties—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.
(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.
(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.’”
This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.
New clause 61—Status of Workers—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 145F(3).
(3) Omit section 151(1B).
(4) Omit sections 295 (meaning of employee and related expressions) and 296 (meaning of worker and related expressions) and insert—
‘295 Meaning of worker and related expressions
(1) In this Act—
(a) “worker” and “employee” both mean an individual who—
(i) seeks to be engaged by another to provide labour,
(ii) is engaged by another to provide labour, or
(iii) where the employment has ceased, was engaged by another to provide labour, and is not, in the provision of that labour, operating a business on the employee or worker’s own account;
(b) an “employer” in relation to a worker or employee is─
(i) every person or entity who engages or engaged the worker or employee, and
(ii) every person or entity who substantially determines terms on which the worker or employee is engaged at any material time;
(c) “employed” and “employment mean engaged as an “employee” or as a “worker” under subsection (1)(a);
(d) “contract of employment” means a contract or employment relationship, however described, whereby an individual undertakes to do or perform any labour, work or services for another party to the contract or employment relationship whose status is not by virtue of the contract or employment relationship that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and any reference to the contract or employment relationship of an employee or a worker shall be construed accordingly;
(e) The ascertainment of the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship shall be guided primarily by the facts relating to the performance of work, irrespective of how the contract or employment relationship is designated in any contractual or other arrangement by one or more of the parties involved;
(f) In ascertaining the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship, all relevant facts may be taken into consideration but the following facts, if found, may be considered indicative of the existence of a contract of employment and the presence of any such fact shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the arrangement is a contract of employment—
(i) the use, by a person other than the putative worker, of automated monitoring systems or automated decision-making systems in the organisation of work;
(ii) the work is carried out according to the instructions and under the control of another entity;
(iii) the work involves the integration of the worker in the organisation of another entity;
(iv) the work is performed solely or mainly for the benefit of another entity;
(v) the work is to be done, or is in fact done, predominantly by the worker personally;
(vi) the work involves the provision of tools, materials and equipment by an entity other than the worker;
(vii) the worker is to a significant extent subordinated to and economically dependent on the entity for which the work is done;
(viii) the determination of the worker’s rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions is wholly or mainly that of an entity other than the worker and, in any event, significantly outweighs the power of the worker to determine his or her rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions;
(ix) the worker’s remuneration and other terms and conditions are not determined by collective bargaining;
(x) the financial risks of the entity for which the work is done are not to any significant extent those of the worker beyond his or her interest in securing further remunerated work;
(xi) the worker has no significant capital investment in the entity for which the work is done beyond the provision of tools and equipment necessary for the worker to perform the work;
(xii) the remuneration for the work done constitutes the worker's sole or one of their principal sources of income;
(xiii) part of the remuneration is in kind, such as food, lodging or transport.
(2) It is for a person who is claimed to be the employer and contests that claim to demonstrate in any legal proceedings that—
(a) they are not the employer, or
(b) the person providing the work is not an employee or a worker.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to all employment of a government department, except for members of the armed forces.
(4) A person undertaking the work of a foster carer shall be treated as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of this Act.
(5) An entitlement on the part of a person to substitute the labour of another for his or her own labour shall be ignored in determining whether he or she is a worker or employee.
(6) Where a worker or employee provides labour through a personal service company the employer is the third party for whom the labour is performed.
(7) A “personal service company” means a company—
(a) in which the worker or employee is a director, or a substantial shareholding is held by the worker or employee, by themself or by or with a member of the family of the worker or employee, or by or with a third party for whom the labour is or was performed, or a nominee or nominees of such a third party; and
(b) which has contracted with the worker or employee to provide their labour to a third party or parties nominated by the company; and
(c) in relation to which the terms and conditions on which the worker or employee is or was engaged to perform the labour are or were substantially determined by any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed, by itself or jointly with another person or entity; and
(d) in which the status of any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed is not in practice that of a client or customer of the profession or business undertaking carried on by the worker or employee.
(8) An employer that employs, or proposes to engage, an individual to carry out work must not represent to the individual that the contract under which the individual is, or would be, engaged by the employer is a contract for services under which the individual performs, or would perform, work as an independent contractor if that is not the case.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply if the employer demonstrates that, when the representation was made, the employer reasonably believed that the contract was a contract for services.
(10) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (9), whether the employer's belief was reasonable, regard must be had to all relevant circumstances including the size and nature of the employer's enterprise.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate as “workers” other persons engaged in work, and designate as “employers” other entities engaged in the provision of work, after consultation with organisations which appear to the Secretary of State to represent such persons and entities and any such regulations must be made by statutory instrument,
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) This section has effect subject to sections 68(4), 116B(10) and 235.'”
New clause 62—Procedure for handling dismissal and re-engagement—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) After Chapter I (collective bargaining), insert—
“Chapter 1A
Procedure For Handling Dismissal and Re-Engagement
187A Duty of employer to consult representatives
(1) This section applies to an employer where, in an undertaking or establishment with 50 or more employees, in the light of recent events or information and the economic situation affecting the employer, there is a threat to continued employment within the undertaking, and one or both of the following matters apply—
(a) decisions may have to be taken to terminate the contracts of or more employees for reasons other than conduct or capability, or
(b) anticipatory measures are envisaged which are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations affecting or more employees.
(2) The employer shall consult with a view to reaching an agreement to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment, or to introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
(3) The consultations under subsection (2) shall take place with all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who are or may be affected by those matters that apply.
(4) The consultation shall begin as soon as is reasonably practicable and in good time for any agreement to be reached so as to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment or introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
(5) The employer shall allow the appropriate representatives access to the affected employees and shall afford to those representatives such accommodation and other facilities as may be appropriate.
(6) In this section, “appropriate representatives” has the same meaning as in section 188(1B) (and the requirements for the election of employee representatives in section 188A apply).
(7) If there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with a requirement of this section, the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in those circumstances.
(8) Where the threat to continued employment emanates from a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), or a decision leading to the termination of the contract of an employee for reasons other than conduct or capability or a decision leading to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with such a requirement.
187B Duty of employers to disclose information
(1) An employer to which section 187A applies shall, for the purposes of the consultation provided for in section 187A, disclose to the appropriate representatives, on request, the information required by this section.
(2) The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer's undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in the employer’s possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information—
(a) without which the appropriate representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer, and
(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose for the purposes of the consultation.
(3) A request by appropriate representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.
(4) In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.
(5) Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to appropriate representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.
(6) The employer is not required to disclose any information or document to a person for the purposes of this section where the nature of the information or document is such that, according to objective criteria, the disclosure of the information or document would seriously harm the functioning of, or would be prejudicial to, the undertaking.
(7) If there is a dispute between the employer and an employee or an appropriate representative as to whether the nature of the information or document which the employer has failed to provide is such as is described in subsection (6), the employer, employee or appropriate representative may apply to the Central Arbitration Committee for a declaration as to whether the information or document is of such a nature.
(8) If the Committee makes a declaration that the disclosure of the information or document in question would not, according to objective criteria, be seriously harmful or prejudicial as mentioned in subsection (5) the Committee shall order the employer to disclose the information or document.
(9) An order under subsection (8) shall specify—
(a) the information or document to be disclosed;
(b) the person or persons to whom the information or document is to be disclosed;
(c) any terms on which the information or document is to be disclosed; and
(d) the date before which the information or document is to be disclosed.
187C Complaint to Central Arbitration Committee
(1) An appropriate representative may present a complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee that an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 187A or section 187B. The complaint must be in writing and in such form as the Committee may require.
(2) If on receipt of a complaint the Committee is of the opinion that it is reasonably likely to be settled by conciliation, it shall refer the complaint to ACAS and shall notify the appropriate representative and employer accordingly, whereupon ACAS shall seek to promote a settlement of the matter. If a complaint so referred is not settled or withdrawn and ACAS is of the opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, it shall inform the Committee of its opinion.
(3) If the complaint is not referred to ACAS or, if it is so referred, on ACAS informing the Committee of its opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, the Committee shall proceed to hear and determine the complaint and shall make a declaration stating whether it finds the complaint well-founded, wholly or in part, and stating the reasons for its findings.
(4) On the hearing of a complaint any person who the Committee considers has an interest in the complaint may be heard by the Committee, but a failure to accord a hearing to a person other than the appropriate representative and employer directly concerned does not affect the validity of any decision of the Committee in those proceedings.
(5) If the Committee finds the complaint wholly or partly well-founded, the declaration shall specify─
(a) each failure in respect of which the Committee finds that the complaint is well-founded
(b) the steps that should be taken by the employer to rectify each such failure, and
(c) a period or periods (not being less than one week from the date of the declaration) within which the employer ought to take those steps.
(6) On a hearing of a complaint under this section a certificate signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown and certifying that particular information could not be provided except by disclosing information the disclosure of which would have been against the interests of national security shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. A document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.
187D Application for injunction pending rectification of failure
(1) This section applies if a declaration of the Central Arbitration Committee under section 187C finds a complaint wholly or partly well-founded.
(2) An appropriate representative may apply to the Court for an injunction to subsist until the employer can satisfy the Committee that the steps under section 187C(5)(b) have been completed within the specified period or periods under section 187C(5)(c)—
(a) to compel the employer to take those steps within the period or periods, or
(b) to render void any dismissal or changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
187E Complaint to employment tribunal
(1) This section applies where an employer—
(a) offers or proposes to offer re-engagement on different terms to an employee—
(i) it has dismissed or proposes to dismiss for reasons other than conduct or capability, or
(ii) in relation to whom it has made or proposes to make substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations; or
(b) has failed to comply with any of the obligations set out in sections 187A or 187B.
(2) Any affected employee or their appropriate representative may make a complaint to the employment tribunal.
(3) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect.
187F Award of compensation
(1) An employee, or the appropriate representative of an employee, whose complaint under section 187E has been declared to be well-founded may make an application to an employment tribunal for an award of compensation to be paid by the employer.
(2) The amount of compensation awarded shall, subject to the following provisions, be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard any loss sustained by the complainant which is attributable to the dismissal or substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations to which the complaint related.
187G Duty of employer to notify Secretary of State in certain circumstances
(1) This section applies to an employer to which section 187A applies in relation to 50 or more employees at one establishment or undertaking.
(2) The employer shall notify the Secretary of State, in writing, of the matters under section 187A(1) that apply and any related proposals not later than the end of whichever is the longer of—
(a) 45 days, or
(b) the notice period necessary to terminate lawfully the employment of all those employees who may be affected by any such matter before any decision to put into effect that matter is reached.
(3) A notice under this section shall—
(a) be given to the Secretary of State by delivery or by sending it by post, at such address as the Secretary of State may direct in relation to the establishment where employees who may be affected are employed,
(b) where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2), identify them and state the date when consultation with them under that section began or will begin, and
(c) be in such form and contain such particulars, in addition to those required by paragraph (b), as the Secretary of State may direct.
(4) After receiving a notice under this section from an employer the Secretary of State may by written notice require the employer to give them such further information as may be specified in the notice.
(5) Where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2) the employer shall give to each of them a copy of any notice given under subsection (3). The copy shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or (in the case of representatives of a trade union) sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.
(6) If in any case there are special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5), the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Where the decision regarding the matters is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of those requirements.
187H Failure to notify
(1) An employer who fails to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 187G commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(2) Proceedings in England or Wales for such an offence shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or by an officer authorised for that purpose by special or general directions of the Secretary of State. An officer so authorised may prosecute or conduct proceedings for such an offence before a magistrates' court.
(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (3) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with their functions of management as if they were a director of the body corporate.”
New clause 63—Protection of contracts of employment—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After Part IIA (zero hours workers) insert—
“Part 2AA
Protection of Contracts of Employment
27BA
(1) Any variation to an employment contract is void if it—
(a) was obtained under the threat of dismissal, and
(b) is less favourable to the employee than the pre-existing provision, unless the employer has complied with all its obligations under, and arising from, sections 187A to 187G of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to any person employed under the contract.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.
27BB Unilateral variation of employment contracts
(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether an employment contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to permit the employer to vary unilaterally one or more terms within an employment contract where the variation is less favourable to the employee that the pre-existing provision.
(2) In subsection (1), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.
(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—
(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—
“104H Refusal of variation of contractual terms
(1) In relation to an employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed in circumstances in which the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee has refused to agree to a variation of contractual terms—
(a) section 98(1)(b) shall not apply save that it shall be for the employer to show that the reason for the dismissal fell within section 98(2);
(b) section 108(1) shall not apply.
104I Matters for consultation under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
(2) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—
(a) the Central Arbitration Committee has made a declaration under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the employer and employee, and the employer has not complied with the steps in that declaration, or
(b) the employer has failed, in respect of the employee, to comply with a provision of a collective agreement applicable to a matter for consultation under section 187A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
(4) In section 116 (unfair dismissal: choice of order and its terms), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) If an employee has been unfairly dismissed and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) the dismissal is unfair is one specified under section 104H or 104I, the tribunal may only find that it is not practicable for—
(a) the employer to comply with an order for reinstatement under subsection (1)(b), or
(b) the employer (or a successor or an associated employer) to comply with an order for re-engagement if the employer (or if appropriate a successor or an associated employer) would be likely to become insolvent within three months if such an order was made.”
(5) In section 128(1)(a)(i) (interim relief pending determination of complaint), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.
(6) In section 129(1)(a)(i) (procedure on hearing of application and making of order), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.”
New clause 71—Review of Statutory Sick Pay costs—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on how the Government can best support small employers with Statutory Sick Pay costs.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the economic effects of increasing Statutory Sick Pay for small employers with 250 employees or less, including the effects on—
(a) productivity;
(b) long-term illness;
(c) benefit spending; and
(d) economic growth & tax revenue.
(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on actions taken to implement the findings of the report of the consultation.”
This new clause would require the Government to consult on how best to support small employers with statutory sick pay costs while taking into account the wider economic effects of increasing it.
New clause 72—Duty on employers to investigate protected disclosures—
“(1) Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 43C (Disclosure to employer or other responsible person), after subsection (2) insert―
“(3) Employers must take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under this section.
(4) Employers with―
(a) 50 or more employees;
(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more;
(c) operations in financial services; or
(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing,
must establish internal channels and procedures for reporting and managing qualifying disclosures.
(5) The calculation of the number of employees under subsection (4)(a) includes employees of all franchises, subsidiaries and associated employers as defined under section 231 of this Act.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this provision, set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” under subsection (3) should include.”
(3) In section 48 (Complaints to employment tribunals), after subsection (1B), insert―
“(1C) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with the duty in section 43C (Duty to investigate protected disclosures).”
(4) In section 49 (Remedies), after subsection (1A), insert―
“(1B) Where an employment tribunal is satisfied that an employer has contravened the duty set out in section 43C (duty to investigate), the tribunal―
(a) shall make a declaration to that effect, and
(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the complainant in respect of the failure and may increase any award payable to the complainant by no more than 25%.””
This new clause would create a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns, to establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures, and enable tribunal claims with respect to contravention of those duties.
New clause 73—Hourly statutory sick pay—
“(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 151 (Employer’s liability), insert—
“151A Hourly statutory sick pay
(1) Where an employee has an hour of incapacity for work in relation to his contract of service with an employer, that employer shall, if the conditions set out in sections 153 and 154 are satisfied, be liable to make him, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a payment (to be known as “hourly statutory sick pay”) in respect of that hour.
(2) For the purposes of this section an hour of incapacity for work in relation to a contract of service means an hour during which the employee concerned is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be, incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which he can reasonably be expected to do under that contract.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any amendment to this Part that is necessary to enable the operation of a system of hourly statutory sick pay.””
This new clause introduces a new defined term “hourly statutory sick pay”, enabling pro rata payment of statutory sick pay by the hour. This will give employers greater flexibility in SSP payment, which can currently only be paid in whole days.
New clause 74—Non-disclosure agreements: harassment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make changes by regulation to ensure that an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.
(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker's employer (whether a worker’s contract or not), including—
(a) any proceedings for breach of contract;
(b) a non-disclosure agreement; or
(c) a non-disparagement agreement.
(3) Regulations made under this section―
(a) must not prevent a worker from being granted confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement, if those protections are made at the worker’s request; and
(b) must replicate or enhance the protections offered to workers by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with respect to non-disclosure agreements and harassment, but must apply those protections to all workers.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “relevant disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer;
(b) “harassment” means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment), with relevant exceptions at the worker’s request.
New clause 75—Statutory sick pay: consultation on rate—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must conclude within six months of its commencement.
(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―
(a) the rate at which Statutory Sick Pay should be set to ensure that employees are able to—
(i) cover their basic needs without falling into negative budgets;
(ii) recover from an illness; and
(iii) remain in work while managing their disability or long-term health condition;
(b) how best to phase in increases to Statutory Sick Pay over a five year period;
(c) the support that the Government could offer small businesses for longer-term absences or to improve the health of their workforce; and
(d) the support that the Government could offer to encourage better insurance protections for businesses to manage staff absences.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
New clause 76—Statutory sick pay: gradual increases—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commence a five year period of annual increases to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
(2) At the end of the five year period under subsection (1), the rate of Statutory Sick Pay must be no less than 80% of the National Living Wage.
(3) The annual increases under subsection (1) must be incremental, with each annual increase representing at least 10% of the overall increase required over the five year period.”
This new clause would gradually increase the rate of Statutory Sick Pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of rate of the National Living Wage.
New clause 78—Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.
(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.
(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—
(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and
(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report ensuring that workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law in order to prevent abusive practices.
New clause 79—Duty to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from sexual harassment; and
(g) the monitoring of sexual harassment in the workplace.”
This new clause would require the Health and Safety Executive to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace.
New clause 80—Single status of worker: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government policy on the single status of worker, and how it affects the ability to access the rights provided for by this Act.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review the Government’s policy on the single status of workers within 6 months of this section coming into force.
New clause 81—Modern slavery in UK workplaces: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—
(a) the extent to which employees in UK workplaces are subject to modern slavery as a result of the actions of their employer, and
(b) the effectiveness of employment rights in preventing modern slavery in UK workplaces.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to conduct a review of modern slavery to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Act are effective in preventing modern slavery.
New clause 83—Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—
(a) the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunals, and
(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.
New clause 84—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.
(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.
(3) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output;
(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages; and
(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—
(i) productivity
(ii) wage growth
(iii) equality of opportunity
(iv) job security
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.
New clause 85—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in section 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of section 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of section 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions in Clauses 18.
New clause 86—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(a) employers, and
(b) the economy.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output;
(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts; and
(d) examine the likely effect of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(i) productivity
(ii) wage growth
(iii) equality of opportunity
(iv) job security
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment, including levels of youth employment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 21 and Schedule 2.
New clause 87—Regulations under Part 1 and 2—
“When making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 1 and 2 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 91—Use of positive action in the workplace—
“(1) In this section—
(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P; and
(b) “R” is P’s public sector employer; and
(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).
(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—
(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1);
(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P; and
(c) such forms to be made publicly available.
(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report to set out―
(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and
(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act.
(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act.”
New clause 92—Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers—
“In the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit regulation 16A (Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers).”
This new clause would remove regulation 16A from the Working Time Regulations, which gives employers the ability to pay irregular hours workers and part-year workers their holiday pay by way of ‘rolled-up pay’, i.e. an uplift to their weekly or monthly pay.
New clause 93—Working Time Regulations 1998: records—
“In Regulation 9 (Records) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit paragraphs (2) and (3) and substitute—
“(2) The records referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be created, maintained and kept in such manner and format as the Secretary of State may prescribe.””
This new clause would remove the discretion given to employers in 2023 to keep records in any form they choose (or not at all) in relation to each worker’s daily working hours.
New clause 94—Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the relevant employment rights changes made by this Act apply to seafarers.
(2) Each annual report must describe—
(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant employment rights change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;
(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant employment rights change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;
(c) the extent to which the application of changes to employment rights to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.
(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.
(4) In this section, “relevant employment rights changes made by this Act” means the provisions of—
(a) Part 1 of this Act,
(b) sections 25, 28 and 29.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the application of employment rights provisions to seafarers.
New clause 95—Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the provisions of sections 26, 47 and 48 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act improve the working conditions and employment rights of seafarers.
(2) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”
New clause 97—Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice—
“(1) Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit “for one month or more”;
(b) for both instances of “one week’s notice”, substitute “one month’s notice”; and
(c) for “twelve weeks’ notice”, substitute “twelve months’ notice”.”
This new clause would change the minimum notice period for termination of contract to a day one right, and would increase the notice period to: one month for an employee who has been employed for up to twelve years; and twelve months for an employee who has been employed for over twelve years.
New clause 101—Duty to establish a regulatory body for foster carers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a regulatory body for the employment rights and remuneration of foster carers.
(2) Any regulatory body established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) must include—
(a) representatives of employers and foster care workers;
(b) independent members; and
(c) representatives of individuals with lived experience in foster care; and
(3) A regulatory body established pursuant to subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the establishment of a central registration system for foster carers;
(b) the expansion of employment rights for foster carers;
(c) remuneration rates for foster caring; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory body for foster carers for the purposes of consideration the remuneration and the expansion of employment rights for foster carers.
New clause 102—Statutory sick pay: report to Parliament—
“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any regulations made under section 157 (rates of payment) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 do not result in an employee receiving a lower rate of statutory sick pay than the employee would have received prior to the passing of this Act.
(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on how the prescribed percentage of weekly earnings specified in section 9 of this Act will ensure that all employees receive an increase to their eligible rate of statutory sick pay.”
This new clause would ensure that the Bill’s changes to statutory sick pay do not result in any employees receiving a reduced rate, compared with current rates.
New clause 105—Substitution clauses: duties of company directors—
“(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.
(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependant contractors.
(4) For the purposes of this section―
(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―
(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation;
(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas; and
(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a "substitute") to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work;
(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called; and
(c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—
(i) performs work or services for the relevant company;
(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work;
(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income;
(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company; and
(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”
This new clause requires certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called ‘substitution clauses’, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.
Amendment 275, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “period” to the end of line 32.
This amendment aims to take out reference to low hours.
Amendment 276, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37.
This amendment is linked to amendment 275.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 277, page 3, line 20 leave out “with the specified day” and insert “12 weeks after the commencement”.
This amendment proposes that the reference period for offering guaranteed hours to workers previously on a zero-hours contract be 12 weeks.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 264, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
“(11) In this section an agency worker is a qualifying worker”.
Government amendments 10 to 15.
Amendment 265, page 5, line 4, leave out from “event” to the end of line 7.
Government amendment 16.
Amendment 266, page 5, line 14, leave out from “contract” to “, and” in line 15.
Government amendment 17.
Amendment 267, page 5, line 25, leave out lines 25 to 42.
Government amendment 18.
Amendment 328, page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11.
Amendment 269, page 11, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) the length of the response period which shall not be less than one week.”
Government amendments 19 to 28.
Amendment 278, in clause 2, page 16, line 22, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.
This amendment, and amendments 279 to 281, aim to set time limits for workers to be given notice of shifts, when shifts are moved and when compensation should be paid.
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 279, page 17, line 16, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Government amendments 30 to 37.
Amendment 280, in clause 3, page 21, line 29, at end insert “provided that the notice is at least 10 days in advance of the original planned shift”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Amendment 281, page 21, line 39, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “a week”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Government amendments 38 to 50 and 79.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—
“(1) The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—
(a) the National Living Wage; or
(b) the prescribed percentage of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the “National Living Wage” is defined in accordance with regulation 4 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.”
This amendment brings the rate of Statutory Sick Pay into line with the National Living Wage.
Amendment 272, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—
“The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—
(a) £116.75; and
(b) 65% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.”
This amendment would make the rate of statutory sick pay 65% of an employee’s earnings or £116.75 a week, whichever is higher.
Government amendments 80 to 85.
Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved person” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
(2B) In subsection (2A) “pregnancy loss” includes—
(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—
(i) a miscarriage;
(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;
(iii) a molar pregnancy;
(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;
(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””
This amendment requires that any regulations made under section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the Bill) must include conditions framed by reference to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
Amendment 2, page 33, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) in subsection (5), after “child” insert “or as a result of pregnancy loss.”
This amendment amends section 80EA(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that the two week leave period is made available to those bereaved as a result of pregnancy loss.
Amendment 3, page 34, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In section 171ZZ6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved parent” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
(3B) In subsection (3A) “pregnancy loss” includes—
(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—
(i) a miscarriage;
(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;
(iii) a molar pregnancy;
(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;
(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””
This amendment amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to ensure that the entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay extends to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
Amendment 288, page 34, line 32, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 289, in clause 18, page 35, line 7, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the hospitality sector or to sports venues.”
This amendment would exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 287, page 36, line 10, leave out clause 21.
Government amendments 86 to 89.
Amendment 329, in clause 24, page 37, line 30, at end insert―
“(3A) For the purposes of this section, any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) is void in so far as it purports to confer on the employer or a third party the power to vary, unilaterally, the terms of the agreement.”
This amendment would render void, for the purposes of a case of unfair dismissal in relation to failing to agree to a variation of contract, any provision enabling an employer to vary a contract unilaterally.
Government amendment 90.
Amendment 316, in clause 25, page 39, line 8, omit subsection (2)(a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), omit “at one establishment” and insert “or more than 10% of the employer’s employees, whichever is the smaller number,”;”
This amendment would require an employer to consult with representatives of affected employees when proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees or at least 10% of their employees, whichever is the smaller number.
Amendment 317, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 189 (complaint and protective award), insert—
“189A Failure to comply with section 188 or 188A
Where the employer has failed to comply with the requirements under section 188 or section 188A, any proposal to dismiss employees as redundant shall be void and of no effect.””
This amendment would increase the sanction for failing to consult with representatives of affected employees by rendering the dismissal ineffective.
Government amendment 91.
Amendment 318, page 39, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 189(4), omit “but shall not exceed 90 days””
This amendment would remove the cap on the length of a protected period for which an employer is ordered to pay remuneration in protective awards.
Government amendments 92 to 97.
Amendment 302, in clause 26, page 40, line 26, leave out “120” and insert “52”.
This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.
Amendment 303, page 40, line 31, leave out “10” and insert “5”.
Amendment 273, in clause 28, page 46, line 28 at end insert―
“(ii) a public authority specified in Part 3 of Schedule 19,”.
This amendment would apply this section to public authorities in Scotland.
Amendment 4, page 47, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”
Government amendment 98.
Amendment 330, in clause 31, page 49, line 11, leave out from "Body" to the end of subsection (2)(b) and insert—
“that person being selected by agreement between officials of the trade unions and employers’ representatives who are members of the Negotiating Body and, in the event of a failure to agree chosen by the Central Arbitration Committee.”
This amendment would require the Chair of the Negotiating Body to be appointed by agreement between trade union and employers’ representatives or the Central Arbitration Committee rather than by regulations by the Secretary of State.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Amendment 331, page 49, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“equal numbers of persons nominated by—
(i) trade unions that represent the interests of social care workers; and
(ii) employers’ associations representing the interests of employers of social care workers.”
This amendment would require the regulations to establish the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body to provide for equal numbers of trade union representatives and employers’ representatives to be appointed to the Negotiating Body.
Government amendment 101.
Amendment 332, in clause 32, page 49, line 40, leave out from “are” to the end of paragraph (b) and insert—
“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations No. 332, (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This amendment would extend the remit of the negotiating body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Government amendments 102 to 107.
Amendment 333, page 50, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the training of social care workers;
(e) career progression of social care workers;
(f) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level which may refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, shall be entitled to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;
(g) discipline and grievance procedures;
(h) any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the members of the Negotiating Body.”
This amendment would add additional matters to those within the Negotiating Body’s remit; namely, the training and career progression of social care workers, dispute resolution procedures and discipline and grievance procedures and other matters agreed by members of the Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Amendment 334, in clause 33, page 50, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—
“an individual who, as paid work, provides social care for an adult, including an individual who, as paid work, supervises or manages individuals providing such care or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides such care.”
This amendment would bring the definition of social care worker in line with the definition of a “care worker” in Section 20(3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Government amendments 110 to 114.
Amendment 335, in clause 34, page 50, line 23, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Negotiating Body, if it reaches an agreement about a matter within its remit, to submit the agreement to the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would remove almost all of Section 34 on the consideration of matters by the Negotiating Body, retaining the power in the regulations that agreements on matters by the Negotiating Body be referred to the Secretary of State.
Government amendments 115 to 126.
Amendment 336, in clause 35, page 51, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) to (f).
This amendment removes the provisions about what happens where an agreement is referred back to the Negotiating Body in paragraphs (c) to (f) of Section 35(3).
Government amendments 127 to 129.
Amendment 337, page 51, line 36, leave out clause 36.
This amendment would remove Clause 36 on cases where the Negotiating Body is unable to reach an agreement about a matter
Government amendments 130 to 138.
Amendment 338, in clause 38, page 52, line 17, leave out from “remuneration” to the end of line 18 and insert—
“the worker’s remuneration is to be no less than that determined and paid in accordance with the agreement.”
This amendment relates to an agreement on a social care worker’s remuneration and is in line with sectoral collective bargaining by which a local agreement can be more but not less favourable than the national agreement.
Government amendments 139 and 140.
Amendment 339, page 52, line 25, leave out clause 39.
This amendment would remove Clause 39 on the power of the Secretary of State to deal with matters referred to the Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 141 to 153.
Amendment 340, page 55, line 16, leave out clause 45.
This amendment would remove Clause 45 which prevents agreements reached by the Negotiating Body being regarded as collective bargaining.
Government amendments 154 to 161.
Government new schedule 1—Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts.
Government amendments 51 to 78 and 240.
Amendment 324, in schedule 2, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4)(b), at end insert “in the view of the employment tribunal”.”
This amendment would focus the determination of the question on whether a dismissal is fair or unfair on the judgment of the employment tribunal.
Amendment 325, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(c) the tribunal shall take into account, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, whether or not there has been a fair investigation and a fair appeal.””
This amendment requires the employment tribunal to have regard to the rules of natural justice when determining whether or not a dismissal is fair.
Amendment 327, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98, in subsection (1)(b) after “reason” insert “relating to the employee””
Amendment 5, page 127, line 37, leave out from “period” to the end of line 38 and insert—
“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”
This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.
Amendment 326, page 127, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) The initial period of employment specified in, or determined in accordance with the regulations shall in relation to a contract for a fixed or reasonably ascertainable term not be longer than ten percent of the duration of that term.”
Government amendment 241.
Amendment 319, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 139 (Redundancy), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished.””
This amendment would provide for workers dismissed by a process of fire and rehire to reduce wages or other terms and conditions to be treated as redundant.
Amendment 320, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) Omit section 155 (Qualifying period of employment).”
This amendment removes the qualifying period of two years of continuous employment for the right to a redundancy payment.
Amendment 321, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), in subsection (2), for every reference to “week”, substitute “month”.”
This amendment would increase the calculation of the appropriate amount of redundancy pay for each specified period of employment.
Amendment 322, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), omit subsection (3).”
This amendment would remove the 20-year cap on entitlement to a redundancy payment.
Amendment 323, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) For the purposes of this section, “year of employment” means “year of employment or part year of employment”.”
This amendment clarifies that, when redundancy pay is calculated, each part year worked is treated as a full year of employment.
Government amendments 242 and 243.
Amendment 343, in schedule 3, page 131, leave out lines 13 to 29.
This amendment would remove section 148B from Schedule 3 relating to matters within the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Amendment 290, page 131, leave out from the beginning of line 14 to the end of line 29 and insert—
“(1) In the case of staff employed under section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.
(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff; and
(e) related matters.”
(3) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—
(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;
(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;
(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”
This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which school employers should have regard but do not need to follow.
Amendment 341, page 131, line 15, leave out from “are” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This amendment would extend the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Amendment 342, page 131, line 19, at end insert—
“(e) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level, including the power to refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, entitlement to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;
(f) Any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the parties.”
This amendment would add a dispute resolution procedure to the matters within the remit of the the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 244 and 245.
Amendment 344, page 139, leave out lines 3 to 34.
This amendment would remove section 148Q from Schedule 3 relating to guidance issued by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Amendment 304, in schedule 4, page 144, line 22, at end insert—
“(ia) for “120 occasions” substitute “52 occasions”;”
This amendment applies the requirement for national minimum wage equivalence declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 305, page 145, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 3 on page 146 and insert “52 occasions”.
This amendment applies the requirement for remuneration declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 306, page 149, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert “52 occasions”.
This amendment applies the requirement for safe working declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 307, page 150, line 26, at end insert—
“Regulations relating to other working conditions
4H Regulations relating to other working conditions
(1) Regulations may specify conditions relating to other working conditions of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about the provision of—
(a) sick pay,
(b) holiday pay
(c) pensions,
(d) training on matters other than those specified in section 4E(5).
(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “regulations relating to other working conditions”.
(3) Regulations relating to other working conditions may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.
(4) Regulations relating to other working conditions may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
Declarations relating to other working conditions
4I Request for declaration relating to other working conditions
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which regulations relating to other working conditions apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 52 occasions during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4J Nature of declaration relating to other working conditions
(1) A declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) the relevant working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and
(b) the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(6) For the purposes of this section the relevant working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4H(1) that apply to the service.
(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment inserts an additional power to make regulations and matching declaration requirements for a broader range of working conditions of seafarers.
Amendment 308, page 151, line 17, at end insert—
“(iv) section 4J(4) or (5),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 309, page 151, line 39, at end insert—
“(iv) within subsection (3) of section 4J (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 310, page 152, line 7, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert—
“safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 311, page 152, line 12, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert “safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 312, page 152, line 30, at end insert—
“(iii) information relating to matters that are the subject of regulations relating to other working conditions.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 313, page 153, line 27, at end insert “or
“(d) a declaration relating to other working conditions;
“declaration relating to other working conditions” has the meaning given by section 4J(1);”.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 314, page 153, line 31, at end insert—
“regulations relating to other working conditions has the meaning given by section 4H(2);”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
New clause 96—Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report extent to which the changes provided for in Parts 4 and 5 of this Act (“the relevant changes”) apply to seafarers.
(2) Each annual report must describe—
(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;
(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;
(c) the extent to which the application of the relevant changes to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.
(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”
Government amendments 227 to 235.
Amendment 6, in clause 129, page 119, line 25, at end insert—
“(aa) section [Working Time Council];”.
This amendment is consequential on NC25.
Amendment 301, page 120, line 11, at end insert—
“(q) section [Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers];
(r) section [Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers]
(s) section [Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers]”
This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC94, NC95 and NC96 two months after the passing of the Act.
Amendment 283, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 1 to 6 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers coming into force until the review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers had been assessed and approved by Parliament.
Amendment 284, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Amendment 285, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 18 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Amendment 286, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Government amendments 246, 248 and 250.
Amendment 274, in schedule 10, page 190, line 36, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
“(17) In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a)―
(a) for “3” substitute “6”; and
(b) at end insert―
“(ab) for cases involving sexual harassment, the period of 12 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or””.
This amendment would increase to 12 months the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims relating to sexual harassment.
Government amendments 262 and 263.
Justin Madders
I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions throughout the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her assistance in taking the Bill through Committee, and the other members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions by raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are engaged in good practice.
This is a landmark Bill that, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. The amendments being put forward by the Government directly demonstrate our commitment to full and comprehensive consultation on the detail of the plan to make work pay. On 4 March, we published five consultation responses relating to key areas of the Bill. That package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have also undertaken extensive engagement with more than 150 stakeholder organisations, in addition to the formal consultations.
We have made great efforts to listen to the range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained have been invaluable in informing the amendments to ensure the Bill works in practice, both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. The amendments will strengthen the Bill, providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring such measures can be implemented in a straightforward way.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government have tabled a range of amendments in relation to zero-hours measures. These amendments will help ensure that the zero-hours contract reforms work for workers and employers, supporting a culture where secure work and prosperous growth go hand in hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1, covering the right to guaranteed hours, will clarify requirements where a worker works for an employer under more than one contract at the same time; clarify that under a guaranteed hours offer, if it is accepted, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and that those hours must be worked by the worker; and enable a worker to take a case to an employment tribunal on the ground that an employer deliberately structured the worker’s hours or offered work in such a way as to make a reduced guaranteed hours offer or to avoid having to make an offer at all.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Given the urgent necessity to promote growth, surely the acid test of a Bill such as this is whether it will actually make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs. What is the answer?
Justin Madders
The answer is in the Department’s press release, which cites Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, no less. He has said:
“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society.”
I am sure that the right hon. Member wants to see that happen.
Amendments in relation to the rights in clauses 2 and 3 to reasonable notice of shifts and payment for short-notice cancellation, curtailment and movement of shifts will ensure that the rights work appropriately for workers whose contracts specify the timing of at least some of their shifts; provide that a worker is entitled to a payment from their employer only for a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice if they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift; and allow employers to disclose personal information about a worker in notices of exceptions, where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law, and ensure that the usual burden of proof applies where it is alleged that such a notice is untrue.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen the appalling evidence that the Business and Trade Committee took from McDonald’s, where the BBC investigation exposed allegations from hundreds of young workers who were suffering harassment, and even allegations from one worker of managers soliciting them for sex in return for scheduling shifts. The tightening up that he proposes is very welcome. When does he think he will set out the detail—[Interruption.] When will he set out the detail of, for example, the period of time that someone must work before being offered a zero-hours contract?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. We are aiming to work on this once the Bill has passed this stage, and consultation will take place in due course. I have to say that the chuntering from those on the Conservative Benches really shows how they fail to appreciate the power imbalance that there is in some workplaces and the exploitation and harassment that arise from that.
Our measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and payment for short-notice cancellations seek to ensure that workers, often in fragmented sectors with little voice of their own, do not bear all the risk of uncertain demand. However, we recognise that there are cases where unions and employers, working together, may want to agree more tailored rights than the provisions allow, which would benefit both the workers and the employer given the unique context of that particular sector. Unions, businesses and trade associations have made a case for that flexibility in their meetings with us. We want to allow for that, while also providing a baseline for sectors where unionisation is uncommon or agreement cannot be reached. New clause 33 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours contract measures.
Like the other workers covered by this part of the Bill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security and access to a contract that reflects their regular hours. Many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed hours, according to survey evidence. We know that 55% of agency workers requested a permanent contract with their hirer between January 2019 and September 2020, according to the Department for Business and Trade’s agency worker survey. We are keen not to see a wholesale shift from directly engaged workers to agency workers as a way for employers to avoid the zero-hours provisions in the Bill.
New clause 32, new schedule 1 and associated amendments will narrow the broad power currently in the Bill and instead include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency workers. Hirers, agencies and agency workers can then be clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. These amendments reflect the call for clarity from stakeholders in their response to the Government’s public consultation on this issue. Given the important role that agency work plays in businesses and public services, we recognise the need to work with the recruitment sector, employers and trade unions to design detailed provisions for regulations that work—that is, regulations that achieve the policy objective of extending rights to agency workers without unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers—and we will work on that in due course.
The Government have also tabled amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This Bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these practices, so that the vast majority of businesses that do the right thing by their workers will no longer be undercut by those with low standards.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions in Committee, and at the end of that we had a Bill 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages of amendments, most of which come from the Government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving them just two days’ scrutiny? Are these just more union demands?
Justin Madders
I have literally just explained how we have been consulting with businesses and trade unions and put down amendments as a result. Of course, if the hon. Member is concerned about the length of the amendment paper, he can withdraw his own amendment, which we will no doubt be debating later on.
We are tabling some technical amendments to clause 21 on unfair dismissal that will update cross-references in other legislation to “the sum”, which is the existing cap on the compensation that can be awarded by an employment tribunal in most unfair dismissal cases.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I apologise if the Minister has moved on a bit; I was just waiting to hear what he said. The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe the provisions around menstrual health—the menopause strategy and so on—include endometriosis, which can be crippling for people in the workplace. I may not have seen it in the Bill, but does the Minister have any plans to ensure that this becomes a protected area of sick leave? Endometriosis is devastating for many women, but at the moment, they are struggling to get this terrible disease recognised in the workplace.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this important point. It was touched on in Committee, but there are not any amendments dealing with that specific issue today.
Returning to holiday pay, where an employer does not keep adequate records, a Fair Work Agency enforcement officer may seek a labour market enforcement undertaking from the employer to ensure future compliance. Where the employer refuses to give a labour market enforcement undertaking, or fails to comply with one, the FWA enforcement officer may apply to the appropriate court for a labour market enforcement order.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct?
Justin Madders
Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the fact that we are removing the waiting days. With the provisions on the lower earnings limit going, 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think that that is the right balance and that it will leave people in a much better position. Of course, it is something that we will always continue to review.
Moving on to umbrella companies, we are aware of non-compliance in this market, where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying employment rights to those who work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for enforcement by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and subsequently the Fair Work Agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies will be set out in the relevant regulations, which set out the minimum standards of conduct for employment agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amending these regulations, and we are committed to working with the sector to ensure that future regulation works effectively for umbrella companies. The amendment marks an important step towards ensuring non-compliant umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the rights they are owed.
The Government are moving a range of amendments in relation to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the school support staff negotiating body. On the SSSNB, the Government are moving two technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The body is an important part of delivering both the Government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay” and our opportunity mission. The Government will today commit to consult in the summer on whether agency workers should be brought into scope of the SSSNB in future legislation to support those missions.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Could the Minister clarify for the House whether the provisions on the school support staff negotiating body will provide a ceiling as well as a floor on pay, or will it just be a floor? There are certainly a number of school and academy leaders who say they want to pay above what the Government might recommend for support staff and that this may limit them from doing so.
Justin Madders
That was debated in detail in Committee. My understanding is that there will be a floor, but there will not be a ceiling. If I am wrong about that, I will come back to that. We absolutely think that a floor is needed given some of the issues with low pay in this country.
Amendments to the adult social care negotiating body provisions will remove clause 42, thereby removing the power to make stand-alone enforcement provision in respect of the agreements reached by negotiating body. Enforcement of pay terms under agreements will instead be in the remit of the new Fair Work Agency under schedule 4.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister is rattling off a whole list of amendments that appear to have come after the legislation has gone through Committee. Does he not understand that that creates a massive burden on many businesses? Would it not be better to accept that the Government have gone a little overboard with the Bill and to start afresh with proper consultation with businesses at ground level?
Justin Madders
The reason why we are putting so many amendments down is because we have been consulting and working with businesses, and that is why we have so much to say today. It was a Labour party commitment to launch an Employment Rights Bill within 100 days of taking office, and I am proud that we have delivered on that commitment and that we have this Bill here today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In that consultation, how many small businesses expressed their support for the Bill?
Justin Madders
I refer the right hon. Member to our departmental press release, where at least half a dozen business representatives and businesses have expressed support, and of course, there are many more businesses out there. Indeed, I visited one only recently that supported the Bill.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Would the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on the press release? [Interruption.] He had better look at the press release just to check.
Justin Madders
There is the Co-op—quite a big business—Richer Sounds, Centrica and the British Chambers of Commerce. These are not bit-part players at all, are they?
New clause 38 seeks to ensure that agency workers in the adult social care sector who do not have a “worker’s contract”, within the meaning of employment legislation, would nevertheless be able to bring a claim in the employment tribunals or in civil proceedings where a fair pay agreement has been breached. It does that by deeming a contract to exist for this purpose between the worker and the party that pays them. That will allow such workers to bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim or breach of contract claim for a breach of fair pay agreement terms.
New clause 37 and associated amendments will enable the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to establish their own separate negotiating bodies and associated framework, and to enable their negotiating bodies and the resulting agreements to cover social care workers in both adult and children’s social care. Care policy, funding and commissioning is delivered together in both Wales and Scotland. In England, the two workforces, and therefore the policies and delivery, are distinct. As such, it is right for Scotland and Wales to have the powers to set up negotiating bodies that can provide for their systems and workforces as they are now. These amendments and associated consequential amendments will allow the devolved Ministers to exercise certain powers in this chapter of the Bill with the consent of the Secretary of State, ensuring that the Secretary of State retains oversight of regulations relating to the reserved matters of employment and industrial relations.
Amendment 151 to clause 41 supplements the power to make regulations in relation to record keeping. It will enable those regulations to apply to section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to prevent employers from trying to contract out of their new record keeping obligations.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) asked a moment ago which businesses support the Bill, the Minister mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. I have just visited its website, which states:
“The British Chambers of Commerce has used an evidence session on the Employment Rights Bill to highlight businesses’ serious concerns about the legislation and the speed and detail of consultation.”
Will the Minister withdraw his comment?
Justin Madders
I am glad that the hon. Member has access to the internet. I direct him to the Department’s webpage, where he will see that Jane Gratton, deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
“There is much here to welcome as sensible moves that will help ensure that employment works for both the business and the individual”.
That was in response to the amendments, so it is a much more up-to-date comment than the one the hon. Member mentioned.
Returning to the important issue of violence against women and girls, it is incumbent on every part of Government to work together to tackle violence against women and girls. That is not a task for a single Department or Minister. The Government are steadfastly committed to delivering our manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and we will publish a cross-Government strategy shortly. I intend to work with colleagues to ensure that our Department does its bit in that respect.
I also take this opportunity to note the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on non-disclosure agreements. I have met advocates on that issue and I understand the significant problems that they have highlighted in relation to the misuse of non-disclosure agreements in some circumstances. That important issue warrants further consideration. The Government are pressing ahead with plans to implement the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We take NDA misuse seriously and will continue to look into it to see what we can do.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
New clause 72, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), focuses on whistleblowing and protected disclosures. That area has been so important in recent public scandals, including the Post Office-Fujitsu scandal and the Lucy Letby case. May I urge the Minister to consider that new clause? Imposing a duty on bigger employers to look at and investigate protected disclosures is a vital way of moving forward on that key legislation.
Justin Madders
I have begun to consider it, as that legislation is now a quarter of a century old and needs looking at in the light of experiences in a number of the scandals that have been mentioned. We are considering where we go next on whistleblowing legislation.
To conclude, Britain’s working people and businesses are the driving force of the UK economy, and the Bill will help to create a labour market that delivers for both. It will deliver significant benefits to the UK, including better working conditions, more secure work, reduced inequalities and improved industrial relations. I appreciate that I have outlined a lot of detail today, but it is important to remember that, as is typical with any legislation of this nature, many of the policies will be provided for through regulations and, in some cases, through codes of practice. We expect further consultations on these reforms to begin later in the year, when we will seek significant input from stakeholders.
I am grateful for Members’ efforts to improve the Bill, and for their scrutiny and debate so far. I look forward to hearing further debate this afternoon.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
After 21 sittings in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are still tabling hundreds of amendments to the Bill. That highlights once again that their false political deadline of 100 days in which to publish the Bill was foolhardy. They should have taken better time.
This is a bad Bill. Although it contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have failed to get the balance right between employees and employers. Although I welcome some of the Minister’s comments—not least on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, on which we spoke at length and agreed in Committee—I am afraid that the Government have got the balance wrong in the vast majority of the Bill. The amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition seek to highlight how the Bill simply goes too far in too many regards: it will affect our economy, it will affect the number of people who have a job, and it will affect the willingness of employers—the wealth and job creators—to take on new staff, to grow, to put new product lines in place and to keep employing people.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and doff my cap to him for his 21 sittings in Committee. When the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the Bill, it said that eight of the 23 impact assessments were “not fit for purpose”. Is he any more confident that that has been rectified through the amendments?
Greg Smith
I am sorry to have to report to my hon. Friend that, no, I do not have greater confidence that the Bill will work. He is right that the RPC placed so much of the Bill in the red column—at severe risk—and identified it as “not fit for purpose”. Some of the amendments in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, to which I will speak in more detail in a moment, seek to explore further the impact that the measures in the Bill will have on the economy, and to answer the point that he rightly outlined.
Fundamentally, we know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they started; the difference with this one is that they are actually legislating for that outcome.
I will turn first to new clause 83 and amendment 283. When we were in government, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We know that this flexibility works for many employees on zero-hours contracts, such as students and those with a summer job or other responsibilities—employees can value that. This Bill imposes a statist, top-down, “Government knows best” approach, which will limit flexibility for both employers and employees.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I visited the Nelson Arms in Farnham recently and met the publican, who employs a lot of people on zero-hours contracts, one of whom, in addition to working in the pub, works as a paramedic, because the flexibility allows him to do both jobs. These are the sorts of people who will be impacted by this legislation.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman says it is “the vast majority”. I do not know whether it is the vast majority, but some people, of course, will want the guarantee of the hours he talks about. The point I am making is about allowing flexibility for those for whom it does work. I gave the example of students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) gave another example of someone for whom this flexibility works. That is not to say that there are not many people in our economy who do seek the change the hon. Gentleman wants, but it is not a universal rule, and it should not simply be applied to everyone. I gently invite him to reflect on the impact this will have on people such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Has the shadow Minister actually read the Bill? Does he understand that the flexibility included is the flexibility to ask for guaranteed hours, and if a student or somebody doing a second job does not want those guaranteed hours, they do not need to have them?
Greg Smith
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that I have read the Bill, and I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library and many other organisations. I have spoken to a lot of businesses in my constituency, as well as further afield, who I can assure her are horrified at the Bill. The Minister was asked earlier to name a single small business that supported the Bill, and his answer was the Co-op and Centrica. The last time I looked, neither of those would be considered small businesses.
Greg Smith
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does it worry my hon. Friend that, once again, the Government have revealed they are desperately hoping that companies such Centrica do become small businesses?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point in his stylish, witty manner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the identification of options and choice of policy on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours in the Bill. That means the Government have not justified the necessity of clauses 1 to 6. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve with those clauses? Why are those clauses needed? We just do not know. The Bill, despite literally hundreds of Government amendments, remains silent about how these provisions will work in practice, which means the Government’s assessment that the administrative cost of the Bill to business in shift and workforce planning will be £320 million could well be an underestimate.
The deputy CEO of UKHospitality raised their concerns in Committee, saying:
“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
That is an unacceptable way to legislate. Businesses crave certainty and a stable regulatory environment. This Bill provides anything but, and the result, as the chair of the CBI has said, is that it risks becoming
“an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.”
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is a learned man and he may have seen the report in the Financial Times that, for the first time ever, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Does he think this Bill being on the horizon has anything to do with that, particularly given the points that have been made about it not being fit for purpose?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes an exceptional point. The Bill categorically will be playing a part in that, along with the Budget of broken promises, the increase in employer NI and so on. I shudder to think what will happen when the Bill becomes law. We understand the parliamentary arithmetic—we understand that the Government will force this through, and that is the reason we have tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283.
Greg Smith
I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point.
Uma Kumaran
These measures will ensure protections for all the 2.4 million people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero-hours contracts or agency contracts. Can the shadow Minister tell the House why he thinks agency workers do not deserve the same protections as everyone else?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Matt Western
Does the shadow Minister not accept that it is due to the expendability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor rate of productivity in this country, particularly compared with France and Germany?
Greg Smith
I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and we have worked together on a number of issues in recent years, but I do not accept his point. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course there is—there is room to improve productivity across all sectors all the time; we would not grow the economy if we could not do that. However, the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Applying a universal rule for all will not deliver what the hon. Gentleman nobly wishes to achieve in the economy. As is often the case in politics, the thing that divides us is not the end goal or the point we want to get to; it is the means of getting there. I do not think the Bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. He looks like he wants to intervene again. I want to make progress, but I will give him one last go.
Matt Western
The shadow Minister is being very generous. I am making a simple point: it is less motivating and of less interest to a company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or expend them through fire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that is why we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of productivity.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make.
Wendy Morton
Listening to the debate, it is clear that there are Conservative Members who understand business, and who come to this place with years of experience—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen. If we want to increase productivity, that is about employees, but it is also about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, contracts, plant and machinery. It is a whole raft of things, none of which we can do if businesses are stifled with red tape and employment law, or measures that are basically about law through the courts.
Greg Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.
Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that
“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.”
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominantly for employees and periodically for employers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that flexible working is not working for many mothers in this country. Many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-employed because their employers will not agree their flexible working requests.
Greg Smith
It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail.
The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output.
Mrs Russell
I assure the hon. Gentleman that women absolutely do know about the right to request flexible working, and that is not the source of the problems they are facing.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.
New clause 84 calls for consideration of
“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,
and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings
“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman, with whom we debated these matters at length in Committee, clearly has not listened to what I said. I detailed how we did legislate in this area, yet this Government are bringing forward a Bill that the RPC, in this respect, has given a red rating and said is not fit for purpose. I gently urge him to look again at this issue, and at where we can agree on areas that could go further or be different from measures set out in either existing or proposed legislation. We must understand the impact that measures in the Bill will have on the real economy.
Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not come into force until Parliament had approved that report. To put it simply, the genesis of the amendment is that the Government have not done their homework, and they have no idea what they are doing or why. We know that these provisions will damage business, which in turn will hurt workers, and we want Labour Members to acknowledge that it will be ordinary people who pay the price.
Let me turn to new clause 85 and amendments 285, 288 and 289. Clause 18, which makes employers liable for harassment of their employees by third parties, is another example of the Government putting more regulation on business without knowing the problem they are trying to solve. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed sufficiently to demonstrate the need for the third-party harassment provisions in the Bill, and has once again rated this impact assessment as red.
It should go without saying that Conservative Members do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace. When we were in government, we legislated to put a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment, a horrible, evil crime that is covered by other legislation to protect everybody in the country. I double underline that we are not condoning sexual harassment—indeed, we legislated clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime. However, I would be interested in any evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, and of how clause 18 might solve that, because the Government have not produced that evidence so far.
Greg Smith
I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections
“raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.”
We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate.
Wera Hobhouse
It was of course my private Member’s Bill that the previous Government supported, but only partly, because third-party harassment was scrubbed out of the Bill; I am very pleased that the new Government are reintroducing that bit. The question is: why does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that employers should prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps, but think that for third parties that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense.
Greg Smith
If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue, it will become clear why we take such a position; I will give some concrete examples in a few moments of where the law of unintended consequences will kick in on this provision.
A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, where students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming. Speakers quietly no-platformed include Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, Tony Blair—one that those on the Labour Benches might blink at—and Peter Hitchens. Although this clause is well meaning, it is likely to make matters worse. As James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, has pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing views.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problem in universities. It has particularly found form in no-platforming speakers deemed to be unacceptable or to make people feel uncomfortable because of their views on transsexuals, for example. Kathleen Stock, a distinguished academic and a feminist, was no-platformed in exactly that way because of her view that sex is a biological fact. This clause needs to be examined in that context. I welcome much about this Bill—particularly on trade unions and zero-hours contracts, as it happens—but I feel that this one area needs to be looked at again by the Government, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend made clear.
Greg Smith
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that this area needs to be looked at again to ensure that those unintended consequences that challenge freedom of speech in this country are not allowed to come through. I double-underline that we have no truck with harassment: we absolutely believe that it should be stamped out, using criminal law where necessary, to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. This Bill opens the door to unintended consequences.
Antonia Bance
I will help the hon. Gentleman to come back to the point. Two in three young women have experienced sexual harassment or verbal abuse in the workplace. It is important that where they are in customer-facing roles, they are protected from abuse both by their colleagues and managers and by their customers. That is particularly important if they work in a university bar, another sort of bar or a shop or retail setting. I was very pleased to have taken the first piece of evidence about the nature and extent of workplace sexual harassment when I worked for the TUC in 2015, and I am sad that it has taken us a decade to get to the point where we say, “No more sexual harassment by customers and clients.” The Conservative party could have achieved that much more quickly if it had just accepted the private Member’s Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
Greg Smith
I do not think that the hon. Lady is actually disagreeing with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime—it is already a crime—and any perpetrator of it should be brought to justice. That is covered by different law.
Greg Smith
In a moment. To answer the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), the point I am getting at is not about sexual harassment or anything else covered in the criminal law. For example, if somebody who is waiting on tables or serving at a bar in a hospitality setting overhears a conversation that they find themselves deeply offended by—perhaps around the situation in Israel and Gaza right now—this Bill—
Greg Smith
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely—
Mrs Russell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order.
Greg Smith
I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:
“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”
that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:
“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”
Why do the Government want to run that risk?
There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.
Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where
“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.
She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,
“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,
and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line.
Greg Smith
I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.
In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289, which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.
It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.
The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have.
Wera Hobhouse
Since we were discussing this issue for the best part of the previous Parliament, can I ask the shadow Minister whether there is a misunderstanding about what this part of the Bill does? It is about a preventive duty, not predicting everything that could happen in the hospitality sector, for example. The guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace will protect people from harassment—that is what an employer needs to do. What is the problem with that?
Greg Smith
I am not sure that the hon. Lady has firmly grasped what the Bill says in this respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society—that is the first duty of Government—but I do not think she has fully considered the unintended consequences in the real world, particularly in the hospitality sector.
I will speak briefly to new clause 86 and amendments 286 and 287. Clause 21 and schedule 2 are another example of the Government rushing to legislate in an attempt to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister, with chaotic results. Clause 21 will remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Again, the Regulatory Policy Committee slapped a red rating on the Government’s impact assessment for these provisions, meaning that the Government have not adequately justified the need for them. They have admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those under two years of employment. In other words, yet again, we do not know whether there is even an actual problem with unfair dismissal for this Bill to try to solve.
The British Chambers of Commerce has said that
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8.]
As such, our new clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of clause 21 and schedule 2, and amendment 286 requires Parliament specifically to approve that impact before these sections of the Bill can come into force.
Greg Smith
I am mindful of time, and I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, so I will make progress.
We have also tabled amendment 287, which would remove clause 21 from the Bill entirely, so concerned are we about how damaging it will be to both employers and employees, particularly those who will not get work as a direct consequence of these requirements.
Our new clause 87 seems a perfectly sensible thing to ask for: a simple requirement that the Secretary of State must have regard to the objectives of economic growth and improving the international competitiveness of the UK economy when making regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. If agreed to, though, it would of course be a wrecking amendment, because the Government do not know how they intend to give effect to the provisions on guaranteed hours, the extension of those provisions to agency workers or the provisions on unfair dismissal, to name but a few. All of those things will be left to regulations after the Bill is passed, without proper scrutiny from this place, and it will be working people who pay the price.
Our new clause 91 would clamp down on public sector employers using positive discrimination under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 where it causes detriment to other employees, and would promote merit-based employment practices. Taxpayers rightly expect that their money should be spent well, and part of offering value for money is that taxpayer money should be ruthlessly focused on improving the public services on which all of our constituents rely. That always means hiring on merit.
Amendment 290, which deals with the school support staff negotiating body, is the last of our amendments that I will speak to. In 2010, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for this: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. It was to allow school leaders—who know better than politicians in Whitehall—to innovate and do what works best for their schools, their pupils and their employees. Instead of giving employers flexibility to do what works best for them, the Government are re-establishing a national terms and conditions handbook, training, career progression routes and pay rates for school support staff that all school employers will be obliged to follow. We believe that the current arrangements for employing school support staff are working well.
Greg Smith
I have explained that I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, which I fear is close at this point, so I will make some progress.
The current arrangements have also allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils. We believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community, to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement or inclusion perspective. I urge the Government to consider this.
There are many more amendments that I could speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not. I will only say that this is a bad bit of legislation, and some of the amendments we are considering, particularly those tabled by the Government, make the Bill worse in many respects. They add to the already heavy burden on business, a burden that will combat growth—will slap down growth—and will mean that the Government will not achieve the objectives they have set out to achieve in their landmarks, missions, road signs and whatever else they have announced. I therefore urge the Government to consider our amendments, go back, and tame the worst excesses of this job-destroying Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, I want to make clear that I will then call Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Immediately after Mr Darling, there will be a six-minute time limit. I call Liam Byrne.
Liam Byrne
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to be very brief—I will just make three quick points—and will do my best to salvage a degree of consensus from the conflict that has characterised this debate at its outset.
If there are a couple of things that unite us across this House, it is that we all believe in fair play, and we all believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. However, the reality is that millions of workers in this country are simply not earning their fair share of the wealth that we produce together. If labour income were the same share of national income as it was back in the 1950s, something like £12,000 a year would go into the pay packets of every single one of the 33.8 million workers in this country. As such, following a decade that has seen 4 million people trapped in low pay and during which we have had a living standards crisis, it behoves each and every one of us to think more creatively and constructively about how we support workers in this economy to earn a good life for them and their family.
We on the Business and Trade Committee have the privilege of hearing from some of the best employers in the country, but we also have the duty of interrogating many firms that, frankly, have been letting down our country. I will highlight three examples, in order to illustrate some of the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. They are not amendments that I wish to press to a Division; they are probing amendments, on which I think the Minister needs to provide the House with some answers.
I will start with McDonald’s, which I referenced in an earlier intervention. It is one of the most significant employers in our country, employing over 200,000 people. Some 90% of McDonald’s workers are on zero-hours contracts. On the day of our hearing, a BBC investigation by Zoe Conway, its employment correspondent, exposed the reality that hundreds of McDonald’s employees were contacting the BBC and the EHRC with allegations of the most appalling harassment. We heard about the case of a 17-year-old McDonald’s worker who alleged that she was being asked for sex in return for a manager giving her the shifts that she wanted—how on earth can that be acceptable in today’s economy? Yet when we put that point to the chief executive of McDonald’s and asked, “Do you think that the imbalance of power that has flourished in McDonald’s because 90% of your workers are on zero-hours contracts has anything to do with this litany of abuse, or with 700 workers contacting their solicitors to bring a case against McDonald’s?”, the answer was no. It was an absolutely extraordinary denial of reality.
We then heard from Evri, which, as many people know, is one of the most significant courier firms in the country, employing tens of thousands of people. Mr Hugo Martin came before our Committee to give evidence, and told us that all at Evri was sweetness and light. However, the Committee has now received hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from whistleblowers, alleging that they are being cheated and undercut, most recently through the rate cuts, the packet racket which is still persisting, health and safety abuses at work, intimidation, bullying and harassment. They are being told repeatedly that their shifts will be cut, or that they will be out of the door if they do not work six days a week. Our constituents are experiencing this completely unacceptable behaviour.
I must be careful about scope at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we also heard from the company Shein, which could not even tell us whether the products that it made contained cotton from China. We were simply trying to understand whether workers in our country were being undercut by an abuse of modern slavery practices abroad.
I say to the House that although we may have our differences on the Bill, we must accept the reality that millions of people in this country—millions of the people we are sent here to represent—are being treated in a way that should be unacceptable in a 21st-century economy. What the good employers told the Committee, time and again, was that they supported the spirit of the Bill, although of course they had concerns about the detail, and it is good that the Minister is listening. What they did not want to see persist was the situation that they feared, in which the good firms were being undercut by the bad. We must have a level playing field in this country: that will be a necessity if we are to win a global race to the top.
My amendments 275 to 277 suggest alterations to the zero hours regime that the Minister has set out. I think we should abolish the definition of “low hours” in contracts. I accept the evidence that was given to us by Paddy Lillis, the brilliant general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that retaining the definition creates a risk of loopholes that will be exploited by bad employers.
Amendments 278 to 281, which might be termed the McDonald’s amendments, urge the Secretary of State to put on the face of the Bill a definition of “reasonable notice” in relation to the moving of shifts and the compensation that should be entailed in the event of unreasonable shift movements. We need to ensure that our workers, particularly young workers, are never again subjected to the kind of abuse that we have seen unfold at McDonald’s. Those days must be consigned to the past.
New clause 80, which might be described as the Evri amendment, creates an obligation and duty for the Secretary of State to bring to the House, within six months of the Bill’s coming into the force, the final version of a review of the single status of workers. We heard compelling evidence from the director of Labour Market Enforcement, who told us that the Government, Ministers and civil servants could consult
“until the cows come home”.
We could put off the consultation about the different definitions of “worker” for ever and a day, when what we need to do is end the kind of abuse that we see at Evri now. Ensuring that these loopholes are closed so that bogus self-employment is no longer a loophole through which bad employers abuse honest workers: I should like to see the Minister step up to that requirement.
New clause 81, which we might call the Shein amendment, requires the Government to update the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and section 54 in particular, to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Bill are not undermined by companies operating in this country that are abusing this legislation. At the time the Modern Slavery Act was world-leading legislation, but we heard clear evidence from companies such as Tesco that this country risked becoming a “dumping ground” for bad products produced by workers exploited abroad. We cannot allow this country, which led the abolition of slavery, to be a country in which we have second-class protections against modern slavery in the 21st century, and I should therefore welcome a commitment from the Minister on when the Act will be updated.
We welcome some of the Government amendments, particularly the enhanced protection for agency workers and the action on umbrella companies. Both are recommendations in the Committee’s excellent report, which I commend to all Members. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we can salvage some consensus. The Bill will go through today, and this will be the biggest overhaul of employment rights in the country. We must ensure that it lasts for the future, and the more we can do to bring a cross-party consensus around that simple idea that all workers—all constituents—in the country should have the right, the power and the freedom to earn a good life for themselves and their families, and the sooner we can do it, the better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.
I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlightened HR and Alison Bennett, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.
There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.
As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.
Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers in this Bill? I recently met a couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They have acted out of love, but they have had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they currently offer to foster parents?
Steve Darling
As somebody who was adopted myself, I know only too well the importance of supportive love. I have been heavily involved with children’s services, and I know that the best care for children in need of loving homes is often not too far away from home. The more that children’s services can be less of a child-rescuing service and more of a child support service, the better, so I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend alludes to.
An area that particularly exercised the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire in Committee was third-party harassment, and I strongly support the Government’s proposals in this Bill. I have engaged with young women in Torbay who work in retail and the hospitality industry, particularly those from Torquay girls’ grammar school, and they find that harassment in the workplace is not a bit of banter, but repugnant in the extreme. They told me that they will go to a shift feeling sick to the stomach because they know a particular individual will be coming in that evening who will act inappropriately. Their managers should have a duty of care toward them, and I welcome that proposal in the Bill.
I know that some of the amendments allude to non-disclosure agreements. I welcome the Minister’s kind words, but warm words do not get measures into legislation. I ask him to reflect on that, and I am sure that colleagues will speak about NDAs.
The final area I need to cover is probationary periods. We Liberal Democrats would really welcome putting a three to nine-month probationary period on the face of the Bill, which would ensure that there is less chance of expensive tribunals for employers. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken in respect of statutory sick pay, but we need to ensure that the correct balance is struck between the burden on employers and positive outcomes for employees.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, especially new clauses 12 to 14, which would extend paternity leave from two to six weeks and double the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with their child and to provide additional support to their partners. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are essential new clauses that the Government should accept?
Steve Darling
I agree with my hon. Friend. When I go and speak to primary school teachers, they say that they face a challenge where there is poor attachment between the parent and the child, which can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving greater powers through this Bill, we can drive stronger connections between those parts of the family unit.
The reality is that we need to support small businesses and get the right balance between implementing the good stuff in this Bill and making sure that we are not punishing businesses. We need to make sure that we support the family, because, as I have said, the family is the core part of what our society is, and strengthening that will hopefully strengthen outcomes and strengthen our society. My fear is that this Bill is a little bit like Snow White’s apple: it may have looked extremely good on the outside, but it sent her to sleep. My fear is that this Bill is a little like that, because it may have a lot of promise on the outside, but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades.
My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.
In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that
“there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.”
He went on to say that research
“shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.]
I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.
Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow.
I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had. It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did.
The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938. People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not.
Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers?
Alison Griffiths
Maybe I am pre-empting the answer the hon. Member was going to give, but what exactly are the measures in this Bill and the amendments—the magic potion—that will improve productivity?
Peter Dowd
I am pleased the hon. Lady asked me that question, because it is patently obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism, more resilience in the workforce and better productivity. It is not a magic potion, but what is known as enlightened employment. She may like to read about that, and if she wants, I will put her in touch with a few people who can talk to her about it.
In that study I mentioned, 71% reported reduced levels of burnout, 54% said it was easier to balance work with household responsibilities, 60% found they had an increased ability to combine paid work with care responsibilities, and 62% reported that it was easier to combine work with social life, and so on and so on. As I have said, the Bill seeks to put this issue on the agenda, because I believe it is inevitable—history shows it—that changes in patterns of work, working arrangements, the nature of work and other associated issues, such as artificial intelligence, will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time. So let us embrace the change and let us plan for the change. If we do want to get the country back to work, get the country working productively and get many millions of people without work back into work, let us do this as progressively as we possibly can.
Finally, if we are lengthening the time we ask people to work by an extra year, two years or maybe three years in the future—if we ask them to have a longer working life—the least we can do is to ask them to have a shorter week. What is wrong with that, and is it really too much to ask? I do not think so, and many employers and employees take the same view, so let us not make an enemy of progress. Why do we not just embrace it?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to the measures on zero-hours contracts, and Opposition new clause 83 and amendment 283. It is absolutely right that we should pause to consider the effects of these changes on employment tribunals, but it is also right that we should pause to consider their effect just on employment. Of course, there are bad employers and those who would seek to exploit, which is a very bad thing. We should bear down on them, but there is no reason to believe that the measures the Government are bringing forward will achieve that.
I suggest that the Government want to get rid of zero-hours contracts not because intrinsically there is a great problem attached to them, but because of the special place zero-hours contracts have in Labour mythology. I want to take us back to the glory days of the modern Labour party when the leader of the Labour party was the current leader’s immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I see the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is with us in the Chamber, and as it happens, I was the Minister for Employment at the time.
When our Government came to power, unemployment had been 8%, and it then rose a little bit to 8.5% at the end of 2011. From then on, it came down, and it kept coming down. By late 2016, it was under 5%, and it would fall further still. However, that did not fit Labour Members’ narrative. They wanted to be able to say that this reduction in unemployment was not real: it was all fake employment or low-quality employment. That was not true, but it did not stop them saying it. In fact, three quarters of the increase in employment was in higher-skilled occupations, and three quarters of the jobs growth was in full-time work. At that time, employment was growing much more quickly than self-employment, and the No. 1 sector for employment growth was construction.
However, Labour Members still kept saying that the jobs being created were all low-quality ones, and at the top of the list of things to call out was the zero-hours contract. The then Leader of the Opposition used to talk about it weekly at Prime Minister’s Question Time. There were a couple of awkward moments, such as after his glorious appearance at Glastonbury, when it turned out that the Glastonbury festival—guess what?—employed people on zero-hours contracts. There was further embarrassment when it turned out that there were people working for none other than the Labour party conference who were on zero-hours contracts.
At the DWP we did some research, and it turned out that less than 3% of people relied on a zero-hours contract for their main employment. On average, it delivered them 25 hours of work a week, while, strangely, they had above-average job satisfaction, and most were not looking for more hours. People said the number had grown, but it is actually much more likely that that was because of growing awareness of the term “zero-hours contract”.
Thinking about our history, it has long been the case that far more than 3% of people have had irregular income patterns, where they have not had guaranteed hours of work or levels of salary—from casual labour to piece work, catalogue agents and commission-only sales. At a certain point, it dawned on me that my own first job had been washing dishes on a zero-hours contract—or at least it would have been, had a contract been involved at all.
Antonia Bance
Does the right hon. Member accept that someone choosing to take on an irregular contract when they are at the high end of the pay scale with significant professional skills and expectations for the future is very different from the endemic insecurity at the bottom of the labour market, which is where zero-hours contracts are concentrated? Some 83% of people on a zero-hours contract—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think the hon. Lady is in fact making her speech, rather than an intervention. [Interruption.] Oh, her speech will come tomorrow.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.
For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.
For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.
The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.
This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.
I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is co-sponsoring new clause 74 with me today.
This is the first speech I have given as a Back Bencher in nearly 10 years. One of the few benefits of—ahem—elevating oneself to the Back Benches is the ability to speak much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice. The amendment I rise to speak to today is literally about the voiceless: those who have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal preservation.
New clause 74 would prohibit employers from entering into non-disclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment or discrimination. It very closely mirrors legislation recently passed in Ireland that bans NDAs in those circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim, and legislation that has been passed in multiple US states in relation to sexual harassment.
NDAs have a perfectly legitimate use in business to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they are frequently misused to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We know of the most high-profile cases, from Harvey Weinstein to Mohamed Al-Fayed, only because their brave survivors risked breaching their NDAs. But these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abusers; they are being misused and exploited on a vast scale. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence—led by Zelda Perkins, who helped to expose the abuse of Harvey Weinstein—has also uncovered multiple scandals in the higher education sector, which led to action by the former Government to ban the use of NDAs in that sector.
We sadly know that, in our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories—
Alison Griffiths
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member.
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that point of order. I am, of course, very happy to declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union.
Trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories that should be on the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape, signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that that had been the case while she was still working in the same workplace.
Media organisations such as ITN have come under recent criticism. As former employee Daisy Ayliffe said:
“Women who work for ITN have tried to report harassment and discrimination, but soon after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by non-disclosure agreements.”
Another former employee of ITN, on seeing Daisy speak out, realised that his experience was far from unique and asked that I use parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidentiality clause he was required to sign. He has asked that I do not use his name, so I will call him Mr B.
Mr B joined ITN in 2008 on a scheme called Enabling Talent, which aimed to recruit more disabled people into the organisation. He suffers from a condition called functional neurological disorder, which has a number of symptoms, including non-epileptic seizures or dissociate seizures, which he describes as zone-outs or blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with note taking, a key to the first aid room, and disability leave when required in order to avoid stress and fatigue-induced seizures. He states that at the time he could not fault his employer for the support it gave him.
Mr B left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and returned in 2017, when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite multiple requests for the kind of help he had received before, none were forthcoming. Instead, he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to disclose his disability widely to his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his zone-outs and blackouts became increasingly frequent. After suffering one seizure at work, he was required to apologise to those who had witnessed it. He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told that his issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite having joined ITN on a disability inclusion scheme.
Mr B took ITN to tribunal, incurring tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. He settled but was required to sign a confidentiality clause. His health has deteriorated so badly that he now uses a wheelchair 50% of the time and, following the loss of his job, he was, for a period, made homeless.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such cases there is no public interest and no interest for anyone, apart from guilty parties, to keep these things secret, and that that is why it is important NDAs are not used to hide problems that employers should sort out?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. There are many organisations, including the BBC, that as a policy do not use NDAs.
Imagine suffering that kind of treatment at work: losing your job, losing your health, and then being banned from explaining to another potential employer, or even your closest friends, what has happened to you. It makes it next to impossible to recover from the experience, very difficult to find work again and vanishingly unlikely that the organisation will face up to its wrongdoing and enact change.
For Mr B, for survivors of monsters such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for the thousands of victims across our society who have been legally required to suffer in silence, I hope the House can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if it can happen in organisations such as ITN, whose job is literally to expose injustice, or in trade unions, whose job is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no matter who they are, will circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim. By doing so, they protect abusers. That is why we must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDAs in these circumstances.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his earlier response and for confirming that the issue warrants further consideration, but may I press him a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And we must see progress. It is sickening that across the country women and men will have suffered abuse in their workplace and that, instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones who are shamed and silenced, ganged up on by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret.
Sir Ashley Fox
As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill.
This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe.
Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come.
It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.
Matt Western
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my union membership. The legislation before us today is truly historic. It is totemic in scale—the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. I commend the Minister and the team for the work they have done.
The Bill delivers not only for working families, but for the whole country. It will lead to higher productivity, higher wages and, ultimately, economic growth. These reforms are unashamedly pro-worker and pro-business, in sharp contrast with the past 14 years, when we saw low pay, low productivity and low growth in the economy. Shockingly, productivity grew by just 0.2% a year between 2010 and 2020. Since 2011, we have seen insecure work rise nearly three times as fast as secure work. Whether it be the 800 P&O workers who were sacked over Zoom without notice, the retail workers whose shifts get cancelled last minute and now cannot afford their weekly food shop, or the 9 million people—one in three workers in this country—not protected from unfair dismissal, it cannot go on.
I will talk briefly about some of the measures in the Bill. Day one rights will provide a serious boost for millions of people. Nine million workers have less than two years’ service with their employer, and thus do not enjoy protections from unfair dismissal. I would welcome some clarity around the initial period of employment. What specific timeframe would the measure apply to, and what exactly does it mean? Moreover, I urge the Government to look at what support is available for smaller firms that are concerned about the impact that the measure may have on their costs. Can we consider what more can be done to guide companies through these changes?
Zero-hours contracts are endemic across our economy. So many people with those contracts are given very little notice when their work is cancelled. In some cases, they may have already sorted out their childcare or made travel arrangements.
Let me turn briefly to industrial relations. An important element of the legislation is setting the new framework for industrial relations. The Business and Trade Committee heard from many good employers, such as Jaguar Land Rover and British Aerospace, that work with the unions to create the right employment practices across their businesses. By contrast, we also witnessed the mistreatment of workers and the denial of their basic rights at Amazon, which clearly had problems in the workplace.
The proposed Fair Work Agency, which is welcomed by unions and progressive businesses alike, is a positive move. As we heard in the Business and Trade Committee, the agency needs to be adequately resourced, because it is so important.
I shall turn to some of the amendments that I support. We just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) about new clause 74. One constituent of mine, Mrs E, was the victim of harassment in the workplace. She was victim to a particular individual who was protected by the management. Ultimately, she had to leave the organisation. He then also had to leave himself. Harassment is such a problem in the workplace, and it is something that must be addressed in this legislation.
New clause 81 relates to modern slavery. The Select Committee heard about the problems of Shein and how companies in the UK have been disadvantaged by the practices of businesses that operate elsewhere.
I wish to talk a bit more about productivity and the points that I raised with the shadow Minister. The legislation is important because it brings not only great benefits to workers, but even greater responsibilities for employers. Tighter employment legislation leads to greater productivity, as we see in France and Germany. Both countries have seen a 20% advantage in their productivity compared with that of the UK. This is why we have seen such a stagnant economy in the UK over the past 10 years.
This legislation is another reminder to the people of this country that only the Labour party can deliver for working families. It will mean less uncertainty at work, less insecurity at work and more money in people’s pockets.
I urge the Government to look at the Fair Work Agency, and particularly at the definitions of “reasonable notice”, “moved” and “short notice”, and to provide clarity on how many weeks the initial and subsequent reference periods should be.
This is a colossal piece of legislation that is so important in this decade. It brings about real change, which is what this party will deliver for working people, thereby boosting productivity and ultimately growing the economy.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and say that the Back Benches are very lucky to have her. May I also pay tribute to Mr B, whose story she told so movingly?
The campaign to redress the power imbalance for those offered non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, harassment, bullying and discrimination has been many years in the making. It transcends organisations and it transcends party. I pay tribute to Members past and present of all colours who have been part of this campaign for so long. I was pleased to hear from the Minister from the Dispatch Box that he hopes to continue to make progress, but I hope to urge him to go further faster, and for very good reason. It is long past time that this practice just stopped.
I want to reveal another never-before-told story from ITN. It is never-before-revealed because it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which means that I will be using privilege to reveal the details. Before I begin, it is worth saying that the victim is not alone; I understand that there are seven out there from ITN—we have heard another one today—and that investigations have been done by ITN’s board, which is intent on change. This victim is clear that she does not want to cause ITN problems, but she wants MPs to understand the effect that this continues to have on her life and why we need to act quickly.
This young woman was in her mid-20s when she landed her dream job at ITN. She quickly became trapped in what we understand to be a coercive, controlling sexual relationship with an older male editor. He would hurl wild accusations at her and accuse her of affairs with colleagues. She ended up suffering from panic attacks as a result of the relationship. Before Christmas 2019, she finally had the courage to end it.
When she returned to work in January, she had been demoted. Her hours were reduced and so was her pay. The first editor she told warned her to stay silent. She said: “You don’t want to be one of those women who always moan about being wronged.” She then confided in a more senior editor, and things got worse. She told her: “It’s not like he ever hit you. It’s not like you ever had to go to A&E with broken bones.”
She went to work every day for the next year. It took ITN months to agree to an HR investigation into what happened. It agreed only on the condition that she would also be investigated. HR found that it could not assess the complaint because it was criminal in nature, but at the same time found it to be unfounded. That makes no sense. Around this time, she asked a question at an ITN women’s empowerment forum, in front of all staff, during the pandemic. She simply asked, “What support is there for women who report alleged sexual harassment in the workplace?” Within an hour, her email had been cut off. HR summoned her to an urgent meeting; her primary offence, it would seem, was asking for help.
From that moment, she was suspended without pay. She had been completely cut off from almost all support networks for about a year. ITN told her that she was not allowed to tell anyone—except the police, to be fair—what was happening. Even her best friend had to sign an NDA to attend a meeting to support her. The NHS offered her group therapy for her anxiety, but she felt that she had to decline because the organisation insisted that she stayed silent. Her lawyer said that the organisation was trying to starve her out in negotiations over her exit. They took years. By the time they got to a settlement, she had racked up £70,000 in legal fees.
Mrs Russell
I know from experience that it is a practice of employment lawyers who work for employers to go on to Google Maps and look at the houses in which complainants live, to assess the assets that they are likely to have and whether they are likely to be able to afford to continue their defence to tribunal, or whether they could be offered a smaller amount as a settlement. Does the hon. Lady agree that NDAs are providing cover for that?
Layla Moran
Absolutely. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we need to put a stop to.
The young woman eventually reached a settlement, but it was extremely one-sided. She panicked, because the NDA gagged not just her but her partner, her best friends and her parents, but it did not gag the men or the senior executives involved in the harassment that she faced. It covered not just business matters—we are not seeking to stop confidentiality agreements on business matters—but everything painful that she had endured. Her mental health spiralled and she ended up in hospital. Every day that she was in a hospital bed, the lawyers sent her automatic reminders to sign her NDA. This was a woman at her most vulnerable. It is entirely wrong that she was put in that position.
It is worth saying that almost none of that NDA is enforceable. It if was taken to court, it would fail. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes it clear that she should have been able to get that support. We are kidding ourselves if we think that NDAs are not still being used and issued. They are. That is why this Bill—whether now, in the Lords or wherever—needs to put a stop to it.
Many years on, following an investigation into the treatment of these workers at ITN, the woman does believe that the organisation is trying to change, and she is grateful to the executives from within who are pushing for reform. The latest update is that ITN is willing to renegotiate her NDA. That is laudable, but she should never have been put under one in the first place, and those protections should be everywhere.
We face a weird situation which we in the House have created. In the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, there is a provision—it was tabled as an amendment by Labour and taken on in the Lords by the then Conservative Government—that says that such non-disclosure agreements are not allowed, but it covers only higher education settings, because that was the scope of the Act. I am an Oxford MP. How does it make any sense at all that I might have a constituent who is protected from such non-disclosure agreements if they work for the university but not if they work for any of the university spin-outs?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I pay tribute to the people who have shared their experiences. Does she agree that the people we are talking about have means and support networks, and that without these protections the most vulnerable in society will be affected, which is why getting the laws right is so important?
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Member very much; these people are indeed incredibly brave. What we are trying to show is that it happens to men and women, it is discrimination, it is sexual harassment, and it is ubiquitous—it is happening everywhere and it is happening now. We are not seeking to silence people. In fact, new clause 74 says that if a victim wants an NDA for whatever reason, they would be allowed one. The new clause simply seeks to redress the gap.
How can it be right that, sometime soon, in some establishments, workers will be protected and that in others they will not? It is time for the Government to sort this out. The new clause does not say exactly how they should do that, but that the protections afforded to all workers anywhere should be the same as those afforded in universities. It would give the Government six months from the Bill’s enactment to sort it out, which should be plenty of time. Arguably, they should be able to tackle this with something in the Lords, which would give them a bit of extra time.
I urge the Minister not to wait for some other Bill or some other time. I welcome the meaningful words that we have heard from the Dispatch Box. However, I also urge him to look back—I appreciate that that is not to this Government but another one—because we have heard this before. The campaign has transcended parties and transcended years—it has transcended Parliaments. We are making slow progress; meanwhile, victims continue to be hurt day after day. Every day that these NDAs—often made in perpetuity—endure, that hurt and trauma continues. Please, let this be the Government who put the abuses of non-disclosure agreements where they belong—in the trash can—so that we finally afford the protections that we are about to give to all university workers to every single employee.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance for many years that I have backing if I need it. I am conscious that although in this place we may be listened to when we speak up, for too many people insecurity and lack of respect at work are an everyday experience.
Businesses suffered under the failure of the previous Government to act when reform was needed. That was not in this area alone, of course, but today we are speaking about the relevant amendments. We can come back to their other failings another day—or perhaps on more than one other day—because this is the time for action and we are the party of business.
Everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours that they work. There is a place for flexibility, but people need to sort out transport and childcare and plan their household budgets, so we will ensure that agency and low or zero-hours contracts work for both sides—for businesses and workers. For too long, zero-hours contracts have often been at the expense of people who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. We will put a stop to that.
A day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and giving the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings and issue penalties is an important move. The vast majority of employers respect the rights of the people who work for them and have nothing to fear from that. In fact, they will welcome the levelling of the playing field. As they tell us all the time, their good practice must not be undermined by the unscrupulous minority.
We also say that everyone should be free from harassment when they are at their place of work. The message that Conservative Members send when they object to that protection—to, among others, the many thousands of young women who have been harassed at work—is appalling. In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work, whatever the industry they work in. I want to reassure, among others, workers in the hospitality and retail industries that they matter, they deserve better and we are on their side. Further, when issues happen, it is to everyone’s benefit to resolve them quickly. We will fast-track decision making and back that up with robust fines. That helps businesses and workers and it minimises stress, cost and delay.
I am pleased that the Bill is welcomed by many of our leading employers, including Centrica, as already mentioned. I know Centrica well; it has a training academy in my constituency. Its chief executive, Chris, is fully supportive of the legislation as not just the right thing to do but as a foundation for a high-growth, high-skills economy and the progress that our country needs.
A stable workforce will help both employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has damaged businesses and services and left our country reeling. The Conservative party may be instinctively opposed to empowering ordinary people, but on the Labour Benches, we say that these are the people who keep our country going and they have the full support of this Government.
Chris Law
I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name.
Last year, the Labour party committed to
“strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.”
Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had
“admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.]
To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries.
With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely.
As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP.
New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance?
This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.
I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.
The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.
Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the Members who served on the Bill Committee for its 21 sessions. Their job was made harder by the fact that this was rushed legislation brought forward purely to spare the blushes of the Deputy Prime Minister, who made promises to the trade union barons who fund her party. As a result, we see the large number of amendments that we are discussing today. It is also the case that while the Government have consulted during the passage of the Bill, they do not appear to have listened to employers very much. Hon. Members should beware the unintended consequences of these measures and the Bill.
Mrs Russell
It appears to be quite commonly overlooked by Opposition Members that flexible working will still be available to people on fixed-term contracts. Does the hon. Member agree that such contracts can be used to manage seasonal fluctuations?
James Wild
I am simply pointing to the words of the chief executive of Currys, which employs thousands of people across the country. I am not here to tell employers what form of contracts to offer their staff, and I am not sure that it is the hon. Lady’s job to do so either. However, the Bill will certainly remove flexibility.
The Government are doubling down by extending that requirement to agency workers. Flexible contracts, which are valued by staff—we have heard from other Conservative Members about their benefits—will be undermined by the Bill. A flexible labour market is an important part of securing a growing economy. The previous Government managed to achieve that while also extending employment rights. As the Federation of Small Businesses and organisations that provide millions of jobs have warned, the clear danger of the Bill is that it will make it harder to employ people by increasing risks and costs.
Rather than striking the balance that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke about, the Government have produced measures that, when taken together—and on top of the Chancellor’s tax-raising Budget and the near doubling of business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses—create a significant cost and regulatory risk. That is why we oppose the Bill and the Government’s action to hike taxes and increase regulation that will make us less competitive.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union membership.
For far too long, our economy has been stuck in a low-growth, low-wage, low-aspiration situation. For far too long, we have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in the country to be undercut by more unscrupulous employers that, as they are unable to compete through competitive advantage or productivity, do so only by levelling down working conditions. That simply cannot be right. We have heard in Committee, in the House and in headlines over many years some heartbreaking examples of the worst scandals that that has enabled. Truthfully, there is not a person in our society who is not losing out as a result of our failure to tackle this issue.
Opposition Members have commented on the pace at which the Government are moving on that issue. We would not have to move at such a pace if they had done more.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with Julie Abraham, the CEO of Richer Sounds, who says:
“Happy colleagues are likely to be more productive. This also leads to reduced stock loss and higher staff retention, which in turn, minimises recruitment and training costs, not to mention disruption to established teams.”
Alistair Strathern
I could not have put it better myself.
Research is clear about the strong link between good working conditions and good productivity, and the wider economic benefits that they bring. That is why I am grateful to everyone who has played their part, including the Minister and members of the Bill Committee—I have sympathy for those who had to endure some of the tropes that we have heard today—in ensuring that we had such a big and comprehensive package before us today.
We are debating some strong amendments today. I will focus on new clause 32 in particular, as it affects a constituent who came to my surgery recently. The literature on the harms of zero-hours contracts—their impact not just on productivity but on poverty and on workers’ conditions, health and mental health—is compelling, but if we do not acknowledge the human impact, we miss half the story.
At my constituency surgery two weeks ago, I was joined by a gentleman who had been working for four years on a zero-hours contract at Royal Mail. For four years, he had not known what hours he would be working week to week, month to month, year to year. For four years, he had not been able to plan his daily life—his other commitments, and the further education that he was trying to do to build out his skills and better himself. For four years, his life had been narrowed by the precarious reality of the exploitative application of zero-hours contracts by those who should haven know better.
For that reason, I am so glad that the Government committed in our manifesto and in the Bill, which was introduced some time ago now, to taking on zero-hours contracts and giving people the right, where appropriate, to request a fixed-hours contract. However, without new clause 32, my constituent would have been missed out, because although he works at Royal Mail, he is employed through an agency. Without the extension of protections in the new clause he would, like many others across the country, have lost out. I am very glad that we are being complete in our approach and ensuring that we do not miss out from that important protection the very many employees who are currently working for agencies.
There are lots of other important amendments to the Bill. I was glad to hear such warm words from the Minister in his opening remarks about the very important amendment tabled by my Bedfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is impossible to hear her testimony about bereavement or to speak to parents who have gone through bereavement and not recognise the simple reality that to be bereaved is not to be sick, and that our leave system should recognise it as such. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will work with my hon. Friend and others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for a long time to ensure we recognise that reality.
There are a number of important measures in the Bill. I can do justice to very few of them in three minutes, so I want to focus on just one: clause 14, which is about ensuring we remove some of the barriers to new dads taking up paternity leave early on in their employment. It is a well-recognised fact that we have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe. Although shared parental leave sounds great as a concept, we do not have to look far to notice that its uptake is shockingly low and shockingly skewed to the highest earners. I am glad that we are taking a small but important step in the Bill to recognise that we need to do more to boost access to paternity leave. The Government will be conducting a review of parental leave later this year, and I know that Members across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister on how we can go further, not just in allowing fathers to have that crucial early time with their child but in breaking down the very gendered nature of parenting, which is currently baked into our statutory provision on parental leave.
There are so many important measures in the Bill and so many important areas where we know we will need to go further. Fundamentally, I am full of pride to see a Government finally, after inaction by the Conservatives for far too long, taking seriously the issues of workplace security, productivity and the wellbeing of people across the country in some of the most vulnerable forms of employment. I am proud that this Government are standing up for my constituent and many people like him across the country, and I am proud to support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size in numerous sectors, from consumer goods to cyber-security and insurance to cloud infrastructure. I may not be a lawyer, but I feel well qualified to comment on this Bill. The Government need not take it from me; if only they had listened to the businesses I have spoken to.
I am vice-chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and my fellow Committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on the Bill from employers, trade unions and industry groups. Our Select Committee toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and hearing from a wide range of sectors. In my coastal constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I have spoken to numerous businesses, many of which are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and inclement British weather. A consistent message emerges, from businesses at least, if not from the trade unions: how can a Government who claim their primary focus is delivering growth be so tin-eared to the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees who are fundamental to creating that growth?
The Government have boasted of delivering this Bill, which is telephone directory-thick, within their first 100 days. This is not sensible governance—indeed, the telephone directory of amendments is testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, allowing employees to question failing probation or a trial period in their contract. From day one, employees will be able to take their employers to court. Our Conservative amendment 287 seeks to remove this clause entirely because it will disincentivise businesses from hiring, as they will know they cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out.
The Government expect entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive growth. Indeed, that is what they expect and want to do, but clause 21 adds unnecessary risk and is likely to be to the detriment of jobseekers. It will further marginalise those who would already be considered risky candidates.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member and I both serve on the Business and Trade Committee. The statistics show that the vast majority of young people do not have two years’ service and therefore have no protection from US-style “fire at will” policies. In hospitality and catering, which are industries that the hon. Member has massive concerns about, vast numbers have no protection from fire at will—overnight firing for no reason and with no process—and the Bill will outlaw that. I know that she supports fair process and fair reasons for firing, so I hope that she will support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
The hon. Member knows that I will always support fair process, but the point I was making is that this clause will make it more difficult for employers to take on prison leavers, care leavers, candidates with a non-traditional CV, career changers, and young people who are just looking for that first rung on the jobs ladder. Those people will not be given a fair chance, as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see the risks inherent in the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I used to be an employer. I was an entrepreneur for about 15 years, and we employed more than 1,000 people. Does she agree that exactly those people who are a bit of a risk because they have something not quite right on their CV and are a high-risk hire, are the people who will not get jobs as a result of the Bill?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes.
The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable.
That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree, as I do, that it is right that 1.3 million low earners who find themselves ill should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? Like her, I represent a coastal seat with a tourist sector, and as a consequence my constituency has a significant number of low earners. Does she agree that we need to be backing them?
Alison Griffiths
I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees.
Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business.
Mrs Russell
The hon. Lady will appreciate that there is a defence here if an employer has taken all reasonable steps. It is only reasonable steps.
Alison Griffiths
I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress.
I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests—
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it.
It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He and I are constituency neighbours. As he will know, there has been a lot of growth in Northamptonshire and increased distribution in the area, so the Government new clause will make a massive difference to our constituents.
Lee Barron
It will indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well.
This Bill has been a huge move in terms of sick pay, as far as the Government are concerned. It will bring 1.3 million people into getting sick pay for the first time, and we need to welcome that. We might need to have a look at some point in the future to see if there has been a drag downwards in terms of the people around the lower earnings limit, but we should certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.
This is not just about legislation: we must change the jobs market and the perception of work that some people have in modern Britain. There are still some people who do not recognise the value that working people bring. I had a meeting last week with the parcel delivery company Evri, which operates in all our constituencies. It described the employer-employee relationship as a “master-servant” relationship. I turn around and say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated. Evri said that if it changed the status of its workers, it would want its “pound of flesh”—its words, not mine.
While we have those who treat and describe working people in such a way, we must bring in legislation to ensure that they cannot treat people like that. Working people are not servants, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is a fundamentally wrong, crass and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those who think like that, we need to ensure that we change things for the better, and this Bill goes a long way towards doing that.
The question I often ask myself is this: why do those who want economic growth think that we make growth happen through insecure work, minimal wage rates and zero-hours contracts, under which people do not know what they will earn in order to support their family from one week to the next? Work should not mean a lifetime trapped in poverty; it should be the route out of poverty, and this Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that is what it becomes once again.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on modernising employment, and at our last meeting we heard from Zelda Perkins, of the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, about non-disclosure agreements. Her testimony makes it absolutely clear that more needs to be done in that space, and if there is room to do so through this Bill, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that were described earlier. The APPG looks to the future of work and what good employment looks like. At the end of the month, the APPG is going to look at good work, the new deal and this Bill. We will look at the full effects of this Bill to see how we can take forward its benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st century, modern employment should look like security of work, well-paid and with progression opportunities, in order to keep families out of poverty. This Bill goes some way towards doing that.
In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill, which bans exploitative zero-hours contracts. Saying that this will somehow stop flexible working is for the birds—it is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had zero-hours contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future.
Lee Barron
No.
Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that.
The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I will focus first on new clause 83, tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—who I think I am just catching before she leaves the Chamber—said that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) also said that we all agree that an honest day’s work deserves an honest day’s pay. A lot of today’s speeches have been focused on banning zero-hours contracts, and the argument has been made that people deserve to know what their contracts are, what they are going to be paid, and that they are going to be treated properly. One of the reasons I think this Bill is rushed and is falling down goes back to a question I put to the Secretary of State when this Bill began its passage through the House: why does it not cover unpaid internships?
Looking at this Bill, and with today’s debate having focused so much on zero-hours contracts, I find it difficult to understand why we would leave a whole section of society out of the Bill—people who can work for up to 12 months without any pay. Banning unpaid internships has been in Labour manifesto after Labour manifesto. In every Parliament I have been a Member of, I have tabled a Bill to ban those internships. My Government did not want to do it, despite Prime Ministers making promises at the Dispatch Box when I first raised the issue, but there are Members on the Government Benches who stood on manifestos that said they would ban unpaid internships. Now we have this great Bill, which was trailed in the general election and is being promoted by the Labour party, yet there is nothing in it about unpaid internships. When the Bill goes to the other place, that has to be looked at, because such internships are wrong.
We have heard a great deal today about opportunities for people, but what opportunities are there for people such as my sister and me, who had to work and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? We could not have spent 12 months working in London unpaid. The fact that a whole section of society can go unpaid is still not being addressed, and that fundamentally undermines what I am hearing from Labour Members about what the Bill will do to create equality. I think that is wrong. The review of the impact on employment tribunals that is proposed in new clause 83 needs to be wider, and it needs to be understood that if the aim is to create equality, it is not in fact being created.
Joe Robertson
Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the problems that he is identifying are a result of the Bill’s being rushed through this Chamber?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I do, and I am trying to make a serious point here. This is a big Bill, and it is one of the Government’s flagship pieces of policy. I heard someone say earlier, from a sedentary position, that we have 12 hours of debate, but that does not come up to the 21 days that we spent in Committee examining the Bill bit by bit. I agree with other Members that it has been rushed through for political purposes.
The purpose of debates such as this is to explore the issues, and try to make a Bill into a better piece of legislation. I am trying to be constructive in explaining where I see the flaws and in highlighting the unforeseen consequences. It worries me when we see the no-platforming of people at universities, and hear about trigger warnings and people saying that they feel emotionally put upon. That, I think, is an abuse of some of the protections that we are trying to introduce, and I think there are people who will try to abuse this particular clause. What I am saying to the Minister, and the Government, is, “Can that wording be tightened up?”
Richard Burgon
It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).
I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend will have heard constantly, particularly in response to the P&O disaster, that the Conservatives were going to introduce an employment Bill when they were in government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have criticised this Government for doing what they promised: to bring in this Bill within 100 days?
Richard Burgon
I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.
This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.
The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.
Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.
I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.
That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.
I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that.
A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt.
Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them.
Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease.
As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of USDAW and the GMB.
It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this historic piece of legislation. The Bill represents a watershed moment: a turning point for working people in our country who for too long have been left behind in an economy plagued by weak employment rights, stagnant growth and the soaring cost of living. The measures contained in the Bill represent a meaningful intervention in our broken labour market, looking to promote good quality jobs that offer dignity, security and respect to working people. As someone with a proud background representing workers, I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s spirit and provisions. I believe it will meet Labour’s promise to deliver a new deal for working people— a new deal that will make work pay.
Whether it is banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending the scandal of fire and rehire, or protecting employees from unfair dismissal from day one, the Bill will promote good secure employment and a workforce who finally feel valued. It recognises trade unions as the force for good in the workplace that they are, encouraging positive, productive and harmonious partnerships between companies and unions. The evidence we heard in Committee made it clear that many of the Bill’s measures enjoy broad support from both employees and employers, such as the modernising of family friendly rights to meet the needs of today’s workers, and the creation of the Fair Work Agency, which will protect good employers from being cynically undercut by unscrupulous competitors.
Let me now turn to statutory sick pay and Government amendment 81. During the pandemic, it became clear that SSP is in desperate need of reform. I am therefore delighted that the Bill removes the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit, delivering greater financial security to working people when they need it most. However, an issue remains. Setting the amount a low-paid worker receives while off sick at 80% of their wages has the unintended consequence of reducing sick pay for those who earn at, or slightly above, the lower earnings limit. Low-paid, long-term sick workers will be the most affected. I believe that is an oversight, and contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I call on the Minister to close the gap.
Turning now to the right to a regular hours contract, the proliferation of one-sided flexibility throughout the workforce has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. It has left workers vulnerable to sudden changes of income as their hours change from week to week. The right to a regular-hours contract is therefore one of the Bill’s most important provisions. However, limiting that right to those on a specified number of hours, such as 16 hours a week, will unnecessarily exclude those above the threshold from benefiting from the right, while giving employers a perverse incentive to give additional hours, when available, to those who already have more hours.
I raise these points not to be critical, but because I believe that we have in front of us a magnificent piece of legislation—one that is testament to the power of collaboration and consultation—and I want as many people as possible to benefit from it. Jobs are the cornerstone of our lives. The Bill takes giant strides forward, ensuring that people are fulfilled by their jobs, protected while at work and take home enough to make ends meet. It restores a fair balance of power between employers and employees. It is good for workers, good for productivity and good for growth, and is therefore good for business, too. I suggest to the House that anyone serious about fairness at work and increasing living standards should support it.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Bill being good for growth, but is he concerned that the Government’s own assessment says it will cost businesses £5 billion? Does he have any concerns at all about the downward impact on growth of that cost?
Michael Wheeler
I think that a Bill that promotes good, secure work across the economy is something we should not shy away from. I believe, if I am correct, that the figure referenced represents 0.5% of the costs of businesses, so no—I am not concerned.
I would like to finish in a slightly odd place. Benjamin Disraeli believed that his Government’s active role in passing legislation that benefited the working person would
“gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes”—
clearly he failed in that endeavour. One nation Tories are now a vanishingly scarce presence on the Opposition Benches. I ask all hon. Members on those Benches, with their opposition to this Bill: when did the Conservatives give up even trying to be on the side of working people?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the
“international competitiveness of the economy”
and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of
“working together abroad to deliver growth at home”.
Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy.
So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite clear that the Government did not do the work needed to get the Bill into the right place and position to be introduced to this House in the first place? That was exemplified in Committee, with the amount of drafting that had to be done at that stage. The Bill should have been stopped by the parliamentary business and legislation committee; it should never have been allowed to get to the Floor of the House.
John Cooper
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job?
As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.
Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be proud to see this Bill progress through Parliament and to develop accordingly. That is what the amendments before us offer us the chance to do. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the work that they are doing?
In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to new clause 7, which reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour party that said explicitly that the current parental leave system does not support working families. Millions of people across this country will recognise that that is the case. New clause 7 is about putting meat on the bones of that commitment, because it is long overdue. We are behind the curve in this country in how we treat dads. I wish to thank everybody who has signed this amendment, because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country.
We have the worst paternity leave in the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is no longer in his place, pointed out. Two weeks is just enough time for the dad to realise that the meconium is going to stop and that they might eventually get three hours’ sleep at some point. Let us see how our economic competitors treat dads better. Dads get 16 months in Sweden, eight months for each parent and three months protected for the dad. In France, Spain, Norway and Luxembourg, dads get at least six weeks. In Japan, they get a year. Why do they do that? It is because dads make a difference. Yes, this Bill would give them a day one right to paternity leave, but only two weeks. One in five dads—35% of them—in this country does not take any leave at all, because they cannot afford to do so. They need a paid and protected right of itself to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kids. It is better for the mental health of the father. It means that they take fewer sick days—there is evidence to prove that—and it is good for the kids. It is also good for the mums.
We need to end the battle of the sexes when it comes to childcare, because research shows that women really cannot win. Even when we do not have kids, we pay the price because of maternity discrimination. We all know of employers who do not employ women in their 20s and 30s because of the risk that ladies do babies. The challenge with this legislation, which rightfully strengthens maternity discrimination powers, is that it could inadvertently reinforce that message if we do not bring forward legislation to support fathers. [Interruption.] I am glad Conservative Members support what I am saying. I wish they would vote with us on this tonight.
The gender pay gap does exist in this country, but it is basically a maternity pay gap, because the motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of their first child, a woman’s wages are a third below a man’s within 20 months. Members might say that that is to do with working part-time, but that is even when women return to the front. One in nine mums have been dismissed, made redundant or forced out. Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums, as if juggling things make them less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely, dads are considered 5% more committed than non-dads because we expect them to be in work, paying for their children rather than helping to look after them.
I want to deal not in caricatures but in cold, hard cash. Above all, supporting paternity leave in its own right, and leave for the other parents in relationships, is good for the economy. It helps boost women’s participation and productivity. Countries with better paid parental leave have a smaller gender participation gap in their economy, with all the economic benefits that that brings. Closing that gap could bring £23 billion into our economy—1% of GDP.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member is talking about the benefits of her new clause to fathers, but does she accept that the effect of the Bill will be negative and harmful to everyone and to the economy, by stripping £5 billion away from businesses? It is no good that her new clause would be helpful for fathers if the net effect of the Bill is bad for everyone, through the damage done to the economy.
Ms Creasy
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal.
A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally. It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all.
We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined.
Above all, this is about our kids. God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee.
To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches. It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change.
This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025
Crown Estate Act 2025.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - large print - (11 Mar 2025)
19:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 409 - Question accordingly negatived.
Gregory Stafford
It is always a pleasure to follow the King. [Laughter.]
I rise on behalf of my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook who are opposed to this fundamentally anti-business Bill. Nothing has highlighted more clearly than this debate the old adage that where we think the Labour party is wrong, it thinks that we are evil. Nothing that has come from Labour Members has given any consideration to the absolutely correct concerns that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), raised in his opening remarks.
The Bill, which has been bodged both in Committee and today, has been put together simply to assuage the union paymasters that fund so many Labour Members. The Bill highlights Labour’s complete misunderstanding of how to help business, employees and, of course, the economy overall. We have a Government who talk about growth but legislate to destroy it.
The Government claim to be pro-growth and pro-business, yet the Bill is precisely the opposite. The Institute of Directors has warned that it will lead to slower growth, deter investment and bury business under an avalanche of unnecessary regulation. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which Opposition Members have mentioned on a number of occasions, concedes that business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs: an economic straitjacket that will choke innovation and job creation. Labour Members seem to have failed to realise that being pro-business, as the Conservatives are, is being pro-worker, because if businesses do not exist there will be no one to employ workers.
In my constituency alone we have over 5,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them operate in the education, retail and hospitality sectors, which rely on flexibility to survive, yet the Bill’s attack on zero- hours contracts threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers and those juggling multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Among the 5,000 small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has my hon. Friend come across one that is in favour of the Bill or lobbied him to vote for it?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy for the Minister to come to Farnham and Bordon—or Haslemere, Liphook or any other of my villages—to meet all the people who tell me what a damaging effect the Bill will have on their small business. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the simple fact is that the Government have not consulted small business properly. If they had, the Bill would be scrapped.
I think of the University for the Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work and the NHS paramedic in Farnham picking up extra shifts at the Nelson Arms, as I mentioned earlier. Those are real people whose livelihoods are at risk because of the Bill. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283 on zero-hours contracts and employment tribunals.
UKHospitality has been clear that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, that is their preference. The sector relies on these contracts to manage fluctuating demand, and removing that flexibility could devastate those businesses and lead to job losses. There is no job security for those who do not have a job. The House of Commons Library briefing actually supports that, confirming that zero-hours contracts provide essential flexibility for both employers and, most importantly, employees. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283, which would demand a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the provisions concerning zero-hours workers before the Government recklessly legislate against them. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has already made it clear that banning zero-hours contracts will hurt the very workers the Government pretend to protect. But yet again, Ministers plough ahead, blind to the economic damage that they are about to unleash.
I turn to amendment 286 and new clause 86 on unfair dismissal and business confidence. The Government’s proposal to grant employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention, and one that is raised with me by small businesses day in, day out. The amendment and new clause seek to introduce an impact assessment before clause 21 and schedule 2 come into force. Without that, we have to be clear that businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in employment is not one-sided; it benefits both workers and their employers.
Similarly, the right to request flexible working must be assessed properly. New clause 84 and amendment 284 rightly demand that the Secretary of State assess the impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rushed policymaking will not help workers or businesses; it will create uncertainty and drive investment away. That is why it is essential that we accept new clause 87 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, because we need an impact assessment of how the Bill will affect businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the clock may not have started for my speech, so I will draw to a close. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] In that case, I shall carry on! No, no; I am conscious of my hon. Friends who wish to speak.
This Government seem to have learned nothing from history. We have heard history lessons from Government Members, most of which have seemed to take us back to the 1970s. Economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape or giving trade unions unchecked power. It comes from fostering an environment where employers can hire, invest and grow.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union and the NASUWT, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I was elected, I was a teacher for 20 years. Today, as we welcome this transformative legislation, I think of my former students. Their lives will be significantly improved by better wages, stronger workers’ rights and a fairer economy.
I welcome the Bill, which will drastically limit the exploitative use of fire and rehire. Just outside my constituency, but affecting many of my constituents directly, more than 500 Oscar Meyer workers are striking against the company’s appalling use of the practice. By creating a new right to claim automatic unfair dismissal if someone is reemployed on varied terms to carry out the same duties, the Bill takes a vital step towards dignifying employees with security and autonomy.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving one of his trademark passionate speeches. Does he agree with me, as a former teacher myself, that removing fire and rehire will give the young people that he used to teach the confidence that when they go into the workplace, they will look at careers and not just jobs?
Steve Witherden
I wholeheartedly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I am also pleased to see Government new clause 34 encouraging greater employer compliance and increasing compensation for workers subjected to fire and rehire by raising the maximum period of the protective award from 90 to 180 days.
Amendment 329, tabled in my name, seeks to further protect against that harmful practice, ensuring that any clause in an employment contract that allows an employer to change the terms without the employee’s consent would be unenforceable, especially in cases of unfair dismissal related to a refusal to accept changes. That would further help redistribute the power imbalance between employers and employees, which currently allows low wages and poor working conditions to become commonplace. The Bill also takes crucial steps towards banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all workers have predictable hours and offering security for their day-to-day lives. I am pleased to see amendments extending such protections to agency workers.
We have all felt the effects of a system that has left so many behind: flatlined wages, insecure work and falling living standards. It is therefore not just my former pupils but millions across the country who will benefit from the biggest upgrade to rights at work in a generation. I am proud to support our Labour Government in this historic step towards better quality employment across the country, and I look forward to the full delivery of the plan to make work pay. Diolch yn fawr.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, which would make carer’s leave a paid right. We have an opportunity to give carers in employment a fair deal right across the country, while also bolstering our economy. The Government have an opportunity to build on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and take the next step in providing working carers with the flexibility they need to juggle work and care.
Carers UK estimates that the value to the economy of carers being able to work is £5.3 billion. When I have met major blue-chip employers such as Centrica and HSBC, and their employees who have benefited from those corporations’ carers policies, they are clear that having those policies in place to support caring is not only good for the employees, but makes them better employees for the employer. The employers really benefit from having members of staff who support them and are also able to do the best for their families.
Mrs Russell
I need to highlight to the House that I am a member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to speak to various bits of this legislation today. There is so much in it, and I know that so many of us on the Government Back Benches are really pleased with what we are bringing forward.
The first part of the legislation that I want to address is clause 22, which will bring forward in future legislation more protections for women who are pregnant, on maternity leave and in the period immediately following their maternity leave. I have spent the past 13 years representing large numbers of women who were either made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or trying to come back from maternity leave, or whose employer suddenly woke up one morning and decided that they were underperforming, often within 24 hours of their announcing their pregnancy. I had a client who had been headhunted and brought into the company, was totally stellar, doing incredibly well and got promoted, but then announced her pregnancy and within a week she was on a performance plan. HR explained to her that because they were, you know, kind and did not want to do that to her while she was pregnant, they were very generously offering her a settlement agreement so that she did not have to go through that.
Lots of perfectly decent people do not understand why they are losing their jobs, and it is because they are pregnant. Pregnant Then Screwed found that 12.3% of women who have had a baby have either been sacked, constructively dismissed or made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or within a year of their maternity leave ending. It is a widespread problem, so it is fantastic that the Bill contains clause 22, which will allow the Minister to bring forward steps to expand the available protections. I would like to know how quickly we can do that, because pregnant women out there need that protection literally today.
Lola McEvoy
My hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, is making an eloquent speech. Does she agree that dismissals of pregnant women or new mothers are dramatically under-reported because of the use of non-disclosure agreements in a lot of companies while they are taking action against them?
Mrs Russell
I could talk about NDAs at some length, but I do not have time to today. They are definitely problematic, and they are definitely concealing the extent of the problems that women suffer when they announce their pregnancies.
The second element I like in the legislation is the improvements to the right to request flexible working. Those on the Conservative Benches have questioned why we would do this. The answer is that the term “part-timer” is still a term of abuse in this country. While that is still something that people say fairly regularly within workplaces and popular parlance, we still have a problem, so this legislation should help to improve that.
Conservative Members have talked a lot about clause 17 and the third-party harassment elements, and it is worth getting into some of the detail. The defence for an employer for failing to protect their staff from third-party harassment is taking all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment from occurring. Employment tribunals have been interpreting the meaning of “reasonable” for a long time, and in a discrimination claim there is essentially a three-part judiciary: a judge with legal experience, someone with employer experience, and someone with employee experience—sometimes from a trade union, but sometimes from elsewhere. When they talk about “all reasonable steps”, it is only reasonable steps; it is not every single step in the entire history of the universe that anyone could ever dream up or imagine.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member is speaking powerfully. Does she agree that this amendment is being used by the Conservative party to condone something offensive and despicable, and that they are trying to defend the indefensible?
Mrs Russell
I completely and utterly agree with the hon. Member. Actually, a lot of what is coming from Conservative Members is scaremongering. A lot of those discussing this behave as if employees with unfair dismissal rights were unexploded bombs. All the people I represented did not want to bring tribunal claims; they just wanted to have been treated fairly and reasonably in the first place. They were typically extremely destressed by their experiences, and for quite a lot of them, their mental health had deteriorated substantially in the course of what they had gone through. I do not think that when people have unfair dismissal rights a little bit sooner, they will all be rushing to employment tribunals the moment that something goes slightly wrong in their workplace. What most people want to do every morning is get up, go to work, do a decent job, get paid for it and go home. That is what we will continue to see after this legislation passes: that most employers want to look after their employees perfectly reasonably, and most employees want to do a perfectly decent job.
Joe Robertson
I have been rather unsuccessful this afternoon in finding someone on the Government Benches who has concerns about the £5 billion cost to businesses that this Bill will bring. Will the hon. Member express concern over the £5 billion cost and the downward pressure on growth that this Bill brings, according to the Government’s own assessment?
Mrs Russell
My primary concern is that those on the Conservative Benches talk about employees as if they are, as I said, unexploded bombs, and they talk about employers as if they are unlikely ever to recruit anyone ever again, and I just do not believe that to be true. Most employers will make a sensible assessment of whether having an additional member of staff will benefit their business and then they will recruit them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.
It is really important that we cut through the disinformation and scaremongering, and that when we take the legislation forward, ACAS has good information ready to go. It already has great information online— I encourage employers who are worried to look up ACAS information videos on YouTube and look at its factsheets. We must make it clear to people that they have access to sources of free advice, which is important for small businesses, so that they can see what is and is not required of them. The position being stated today is bluntly exaggerated and quite damaging as a result.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of my new clause 105. The labour abuse that it seeks to address is the wrongful use of substitution clauses by gig economy workers. To guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, it is crucial that there be transparency, which can be delivered through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. That will help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, but it will also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. The unlawful employment of migrants with no right to work here is not good for taxpayers, British workers or migrants who follow the rules, yet substitution clauses allow what have become known as “Deliveroo visas”—the industrial scale abuse of our immigration and labour laws.
Before addressing the substance of my new clause, I also commend new clause 30 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), which I have sponsored. It would give special constables the right to take time off to carry out their police duties. Other public service volunteers, such as magistrates and councillors, receive that right.
I turn to my new clause 105. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, and I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words in Committee, but my new clause provides a way to resolve a particular abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account.
There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years we have heard stories of the rampant labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies. From late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been linked to labour market abuses. Much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses.
Amazon tells its couriers that it is their
“responsibility to pay your substitute…at any rate you agree with them”
and
“you must ensure that any substitute…has the right to work in the UK”.
It is a dereliction of duty to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers, but those companies clearly have an interest in maintaining a status quo in which undocumented migrants take the lowest fees in delivery apps.
Data from the Rodeo app shows the effect of that abuse on riders’ order fees. Just Eat riders saw their fees drop by 14.4%, from £6.53 in 2021 to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop for Uber Eats order fees—from £4.36 to £4.21—during the same period. Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Those figures are not adjusted for inflation, but it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers—British workers—and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from such companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made the problem go away. We should all be appalled by this state of affairs, because nobody should be above the law.
During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. In the same month, 60 riders from Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and holding false documentation. Last month, Deliveroo sacked more than 100 riders who shared their accounts with illegal migrants. But that is only the tip of the iceberg: insurance companies report unauthorised riders involved in motor and personal injury cases.
That is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts for between £70 and £100 a week. Profiles have been bought for as much as £5,000. The i Paper found more than 100,000 people on Facebook groups where identities have been traded for years, including one group that gained around 28,000 members in less than 18 months.
Illegal migrants are using social media apps to rent accounts and share information on a significant scale. Today, we only have figures from press investigations, but we can find copious examples across the internet with ease. Legal workers have reported problems to the police and the Home Office, but that has fuelled tensions as they compete for orders and has even led to violent clashes between legal and illegal riders in Brighton and London, including physical beatings and damage to bikes.
People working illegally for these big companies are working longer hours round the clock for lower fees, never knowing when their last payday might be. They use group chats to share information and evade Home Office immigration raids. We do not even know how many substitute riders there are for these companies at any given time. A spokesman for the App Drivers and Couriers Union says:
“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything.”
Sir Gavin Williamson
Obviously, my hon. Friend hopes that the Government will support his new clause. What does he think would stop the Government supporting this very sensible measure straightaway?
Nick Timothy
I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party.
Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well.
Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does, so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers.
Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in.
In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further.
Andy McDonald
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party?
John McDonnell
I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.
A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.
I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?
There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.
The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.
The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.
NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.
Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.
Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.
I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.
Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?
I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the trade unions USDAW, Unison and GMB, and I am also proud to have worked at a domestic abuse charity for six years. That is why I rise today to speak in support of new clause 22, which I have tabled with the support of colleagues from across the House. I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, the secretariat of which is ably provided by Women’s Aid. I have tabled this new clause following evidence presented to the APPG, with the drafting support of the law firm Hogan Lovells.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As other Conservative Members have already pointed out, the flaws in this Bill are numerous. It will damage businesses and, ultimately, employment opportunities, and I am deeply concerned about its consequences for our economy both nationally and in my constituency. The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, but the Bill will penalise and stifle those who do just that. Businesses of all sizes, investors and entrepreneurs—these are the people who grow our economy. Only if we grow our economy can we invest in our much-needed public services, and only then can we provide the significant increases in defence investment that are needed more than ever at this time. We ought to be empowering businesses to deliver growth, but the Bill adds burdens on business to such an extent that, by the Government’s own admission, it will cost the economy up to £5 billion a year. In fact, I believe that that is a fairly conservative estimate and that it will probably cost much more.
Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has gone through the floor, although I do not need a survey to tell me that, because my inbox has received a steady stream of messages from local businesses reaching out to share the detrimental impacts of the Budget and their concern about the impact of measures in the Bill. Every week I visit and meet business owners across my constituency, and the message is consistent and clear: how can the Government expect the economy to grow when it penalises the growth creators?
Amendment 289, tabled by the Opposition, offers a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to mitigate the unintended consequences of placing a duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment in the hospitality sector. I have listened closely to the debate on that issue, so let me say strongly that harassment of any sort is absolutely wrong. I do not for one moment condone or excuse any kind of harassment, in the hospitality sector or, indeed, in any other area. The reality is, however, that in a pub, a restaurant, a social setting or a hospitality setting, things may be said that are not acceptable. As has already been made clear, this is not condoning sexual harassment; it is making clear that we simply cannot legislate for people’s words or language in every context. We must have free speech. Surely it is reasonable to protect our landlords and restaurant owners in the hospitality sector, and to include provisions exempting them in the Bill, if it has to be passed at all. It cannot be fair to expect landlords to be responsible for every conversation that takes place on their premises.
It has been made clear to me by the many landlords and restaurant owners across my constituency whom I have met since my election—whether it be Woody who runs the Swan in Tarporley and the Lion at Malpas, or Jarina at the Rasoi and the Bulls Head—that employee welfare is a top priority for them. I know that they do everything they can to treat staff exceptionally well, and to protect them from third-party harassment. They want their staff to be safe and secure, but making such businesses liable for other people’s behaviour and language is a step too far, and will have a detrimental impact on our hospitality sector.
Let me end by reiterating my deep and fundamental concerns about the Bill as a whole. I will not be supporting it today. There are Opposition amendments that would improve it, and I hope that they will be supported, because they are pragmatic and give a glimmer of hope to businesses faced with what is otherwise very damaging legislation. I also hope that when Labour Members vote this evening they will consider the consequences of the Bill and the ways in which it is detrimental to growth, something that the Government have sought to pursue.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a trade union member.
This Government were elected on the promise to deliver the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, and that is exactly what this Bill will do. The previous Government oversaw a system that left working people paying the price for economic decline through insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. The measures in this Bill will make a serious difference to working people’s lives. Nine million people will benefit from day one protection against unfair dismissal, the around 4,000 mothers who are dismissed each year after returning from maternity leave will be protected, and 1.3 million people on low wages will receive statutory sick pay for the first time. In Luton North and elsewhere, these rights will make a real and meaningful difference to people, especially those in new jobs, on lower incomes or with insecure contracts.
As a former care worker, I know that fair pay in adult social care—bringing workers and employers together to agree pay and conditions across the whole sector—will be transformational and is long overdue. During covid, when many carers risked their lives and those of their families to care for others, the last Government handed out claps, gave out bin bags in place of personal protective equipment, and sent carers off to food banks. This Government are delivering the recognition that social care is skilled, valued and vital to a thriving society.
I will speak in my role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Our Committee’s report in January showed the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss. I give my wholehearted thanks to all who gave evidence, which led to our report and the amendment that followed. I thank Members from across the House for their support, and I especially thank the brave women who shared their experience of losing a pregnancy with our Committee. All of them had only the option of sick leave, and every single witness said it is time for a change.
Granting sick leave to grieve the loss of a pregnancy is not appropriate. First, it means that women workers are left fearful that human resources processes will kick in following the accrual of sick leave. Secondly, it wrongly reinforces the feeling that there is something wrong with their bodies. Thirdly, it makes them feel unable to talk about their miscarriage with both their employers and their colleagues, as they should be able to do. It is as if miscarriage is something shameful to approach one’s boss about.
From small businesses to big businesses, such as the Co-op Group and TUI, many employers already offer bereavement leave following miscarriage, as does the NHS, which is the largest public sector employer of women. They all show that doing the right thing is good for workers and good for business, and I am so pleased to hear the Minister commit to working with the other place to introduce miscarriage bereavement leave. This Labour Government will make the UK only the fourth country in the world to recognise the need for bereavement leave following miscarriage, which is truly world leading. We will be a leading light in a world that seems to be taking a backwards step on women’s rights.
Although such leave is not paid, as outlined in my amendments, it is a significant step forward. It not only provides rights, but goes a long way towards furthering how we talk about pregnancy loss in society as a whole. Miscarriage should no longer be ignored and stigmatised as a sickness. People have been moved to tears of joy, relief and raw emotion on discovering that their loss is now acknowledged and that things will change. Later tonight, in the privacy of my home, I will probably be one of those people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her passion and compassion, for her honesty and for talking about this subject in the Chamber. We all recognise her commitment to the task that she has set herself, and this Government will deliver it for her. I welcome that, because we have all lost loved ones. We have mothers and sisters who have had miscarriages, and we have family members and colleagues who have had miscarriages. That is why we commend the hon. Lady for making a special contribution.
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Member for his kind intervention, and I thank many Members for their support throughout the years. I experienced pregnancy loss while I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me though, but at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, “Get well soon”; they all said, “I’m sorry for your loss.” I am so glad that today the Minister has committed to the law reflecting society’s view on miscarriage.
I thank the Department for Business and Trade team, and especially the Minister, for meeting the challenge set by the Women and Equalities Committee. Each of the Committee members is committed to this, and it was enabled by our excellent Clerks. I thank the Members who have supported my amendment—and our amendments —and so many people for their campaigning work. Many Members have been very kind and have expressed gratitude to me for tabling the amendment, but this was actually a team job, with team work and campaigning spanning many years.
Laurence Turner
It is a particular pleasure to follow a former colleague of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). What she has said will have a special resonance with the many people who are following this debate in this Chamber and beyond. She has done a valuable public service, and we thank her for it.
As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Because time is limited, I will restrict my comments to Opposition amendment 290 on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. This amendment seeks to disapply the SSSNB’s statutory remit from both academies and local authority maintained schools, which makes it substantially different from and more damaging than the similar amendment brought forward in Committee. If it was carried, it would reduce protection for many school support staff workers in employment.
The vast majority of school support staff are already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly and the rest indirectly. However, the existing agreement, through the National Joint Council, does not serve support staff or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just £17,400 on average, and 90% of those workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better. Most schools struggle to recruit for those roles, according to research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and at one point during the pandemic the role of teaching assistants was the second hardest to recruit for after that of HGV drivers.
This is not just about pay. As the Harpur v. Brazel case showed, substantial liabilities also exist for employers because of unclear and outdated terms and conditions. As the Confederation of School Trusts, representing academy employers, has said, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local government negotiating umbrella. Indeed, the request from school employers was for the Bill to establish a floor, not a ceiling.
That point was addressed in Committee, so we might ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is in contradiction to the amendment that the Opposition tabled in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee. After all, it was the Conservatives who put the School Teachers Review Body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school support staff? Similarly, they are not seeking to amend the Bill in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two occupations.
I fear that the answer is that school support staff—the majority of people who work in schools—are suffering from the soft prejudice of unequal knowledge and interests that divide the workforce into professionals and ancillaries. This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago, when the process that led to the SSSNB began. This is not a measure whose time has come; it is long overdue.
I wish to say a little about the importance of the measure for special educational needs and disabilities. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools’ models of inclusion.
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech and referring to a really important group of people. As a former teacher—I mention it quite often— I recognise the huge importance of what school support staff provide to the classroom. Does he agree that they support not just learners but teachers too, and have a wider influence on the school community?
Laurence Turner
I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day.
School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote.
In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today.
The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight.
Andy McDonald
As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”.
I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status.
I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that
“the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”,
adding that
“you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”.
The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights.
I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment
“so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.”
I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels.
I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable.
I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62.
Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out:
“The power is all with the employers,”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57]
and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend has played such an important role in the development of these policies. He is making a wide-ranging speech—in his remaining remarks, will he reflect on the importance of not just individual rights, but collective rights?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend highlights a critical issue—this is about making that shift and reversing the decline in collective bargaining. We should be looking for the International Labour Organisation standard and, as per the European Union, to get to 80% collective bargaining coverage across the piece.
I also note the concerns of the TUC and Unite regarding Government new clauses 90 to 96, on the “one establishment” issue, and urge them to engage with the unions on these issues.
Much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee calls for consensus. At the core of this discussion has to be that good, well-paid, secure, unionised employment is good for our constituents, our businesses and our economy, and this crucial Employment Rights Bill is an essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter future for all our people.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today.
The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most.
There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay.
As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell.
It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%.
These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population.
Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts.
My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today.
We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Research has found that the cost of presenteeism to the private sector in mental ill health alone is £24 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that shows that reforming our statutory sick pay is the most pro-prosperity, pro-productivity policy that we can pursue?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer.
My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on advancing the Bill—eight months into their mandate, we are at the remaining stages. In Northern Ireland, 13 months after restoration, the proposed NI “good jobs” Bill has not even been introduced, and doubt is growing as to whether it will pass in this mandate. Once again, workers and businesses in Northern Ireland are paying the cost of dither and lack of ambition. Does he agree that those same barriers to people on sick pay also apply to women on maternity leave? Would he support in principle my new clause 23, which would raise statutory maternity pay for women in work to the living wage for the later parts of maternity leave?
Imran Hussain
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case brilliantly. I would support that in principle, because the challenges are exactly the same. I said at the beginning of my speech that many of the amendments, if not all—not the ones tabled by the Opposition, but the reasonable ones from the Government Benches—are constructive and designed to improve the Bill further.
My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had the great pleasure of working together for many months on the Bill, so he will know that I come from a position of sincerity to strengthen the Bill further. I fully understand that amendment 7 is a probing amendment, which will not be voted on in Lobbies. However, it does reflect the ambition that we should rightly have because it is shameful, frankly, that we are in the situation of offering among the lowest statutory sick pay. Our partners across Europe, quite rightly, are much better on this.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider new clause 102. Again, it does not ask for any immediate action today; it asks the Government to come back to the House in three months to report back that nobody will be worse off as a result of these measures. I do not think that is ever an intended consequence of the Government’s excellent measures, so I look forward to my hon. Friend engaging with me further on that.
Finally, I want to end by paying tribute to the millions of workers who are the backbone of our economy. It is my hope that, with the amendments and new clauses that we have proposed today, we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice, and where no one must choose between their health and their livelihood.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I place proudly on the record that I am currently a member of Unite and GMB. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my good friend Terry Jones, a brilliant Scouse trade unionist who sadly passed away this morning. He supported the Bill wholeheartedly.
Forty-five years after Margaret Thatcher began her war on trade unions, the Bill is hugely welcome and long overdue. It is a step to turn back the tide and strengthen the power of workers. In a former life as an industrial organiser for Unite the union, I saw how difficult it was to build industrial strength in workplaces because of the restrictive legislation supported by previous Governments of all colours. The Bill will hopefully begin at long last to turn back that tide.
Hon. Members have already discussed key measures in the Bill, and there is so much to welcome. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in getting the Bill to this place, and I also congratulate him and his team on taking two points off Arsenal, which helped us no end on Sunday.
The Bill needs to be not the end, though, but the beginning of a renewal of trade union rights. If we want to tackle the injustices done to the working class from low pay and poverty to sordid inequality, we need to empower the institutions that were founded to fight for the working class. Be in no doubt about the scale of the problem: 60% of those who use the nine food pantries run across Liverpool are in work, including public sector workers from nurses to Department for Work and Pensions workers. Let that sink in: 60% of those relying on emergency food aid are in work. That tells us how broken the labour market is for so many people.
Economic growth goes hand in hand with fixing the broken economic settlement, hence the importance of the Bill. I will focus my comments on the amendments but, for the record, tomorrow we will debate two new clauses that I have tabled about upholding trade union rights and outsourcing. My amendments for debate today—amendments 326 and 327—are aimed at strengthening protections against unfair dismissals, but in my brief time I will focus on amendments tabled by colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has tabled a series of crucial amendments to strengthen the Bill. He deserves a huge amount of credit for getting the Bill to this place. His amendments include amendments 265 to 267, which would enhance the Bill’s provisions against zero-hours contracts. Those contracts leave workers with precious little control over their lives, allowing bosses to dictate shifts with little or no notice, with workers vulnerable to gross exploitation. It is no wonder that workers overwhelmingly prefer regular contracts. For example, when Wetherspoons introduced the option of guaranteed hours for its workforce, 99% of workers opted for that, with just 1% choosing the zero-hours contract model. The amendments would help ensure that when we say we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, we actually mean it.
My hon. Friend has also tabled new clauses 62 to 65, which would strengthen the Bill’s protections against the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire. I saw in my own family the devastating impact that this cruel practice can have in destroying livelihoods when my brother was a victim of fire and rehire at British Gas. This immoral practice should never again be able to be used by rogue employees as a weapon against the working classes of this country. I fully support those strengthening new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has tabled amendment 7, which would raise statutory sick pay to the level of the national living wage, and new clause 102, which would guarantee that workers do not lose out under the new fair earnings replacement proposals. We should have learned from the pandemic that no one should be forced into work when they are ill. Those amendments and others would help to make that a reality. I really hope that the Minister and Front-Bench Members are listening.
The devastating consequences of Thatcherism’s assault on working-class communities and trade unions are seen in towns and cities across the country. Once vibrant industrial towns have been hollowed out and industries destroyed, with insecure work replacing well-paid, unionised jobs. The never-ending doom loop must be broken if we are to rebuild communities that at the moment feel forgotten, betrayed and abandoned by successive Governments since Thatcher. The Bill must be a decisive step in breaking away from a failed settlement and finally building a country that works for us all.
Lola McEvoy
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade union member and in my career, I have campaigned for more rights for support staff and teaching assistants in schools, for better bargaining rights for care workers, for people to have contracts that affect the hours they work and for statutory sick pay from day one. I am proud that the Bill will deliver all those things—and much more—for working people up and down the country.
I rise to speak to the issue of parental leave, which has come up in relation to many amendments and in contributions from Members across the House. Since I was elected in July, I have spoken three times in the Chamber about the terrible inequality around dads’ rights and paternity pay, including in my maiden speech during the International Men’s Day debate and again in the debate on this Bill in last October. I therefore welcome the clauses that support dads’ rights and will encourage more men to take their paternity leave entitlements.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of the GMB.
I stand to speak against amendment 289, which would exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s duty for employers not to permit harassment of their employees. The first time I was harassed at work was when I was 14 years old, waiting tables at a charity event. The second time was when I was 16, in a bistro, except this time I was being paid for the experience. After that, it was when I was a student working in a bar, then when I worked in a canteen, and then in a warehouse. It is because of that experience—one shared by people of both sexes and all ages, but particularly the young and particularly women, across this country—that I was, I am not going to lie, absolutely gobsmacked by the amendment tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to the protection from harassment clause, which would exclude those working in the hospitality sector or sports venues.
The Conservative party is arguing that some kind of harassment is okay and that if you are working in the hospitality sector or in a sports venue, it is fine. Tories seem to believe that if you go to a pub, your right to harass bar staff is greater than their right not to be harassed. I have to say, that is quite an extraordinary thing to argue for, but I am glad that they are at least being honest with us. Jobs in hospitality often involve insecure work on low pay that is reliant on tips. In Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs, thousands of people work in jobs like that, and I do not see why it should be deemed acceptable for them to be harassed in their job, but not people who work in an office.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a proud member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that even more concerning are the calls from the Opposition Benches, and particularly from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for the Equality Act to be scrapped, which would mean that laws covering sexual harassment and equal pay would be completely removed from the workplace? This is a really troubling agenda from the Conservatives, and I believe it is in keeping with this amendment.
Ms Billington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is indeed a very worrying direction of travel from the Conservatives.
We on the Labour Benches think that people should not be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a controversial aspect of the Bill for the Conservatives. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, so I would really appreciate it if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now in his place, could answer a few questions. When did it become Conservative party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does that apply only to staff working in hospitality and sports venues and not to all workers? Why is it all right to harass bar staff but not office staff?
Alison Griffiths
I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour.
Ms Billington
I would like to emphasise that I listened closely to the opening speeches when the hon. Lady’s colleagues were talking about amendment 289. I heard clearly, for example, some confusion over whether sexual harassment was a crime or a civil offence, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on their understanding of employment law or, indeed, what is considered acceptable at work.
The amendment is utterly disgraceful. I am proud that this Labour Government have brought forward a Bill to stop workers being harassed wherever they work. It is just a shame that the Conservative party does not agree. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and apparently the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), think that it is wrong that pub landlords will have to be responsible for kicking out customers. He talked about it being a “banter ban”, but pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviour in limits and protecting their staff and customers from being pestered or being made the unwilling butt of so-called jokes. This law—
Ms Billington
No, I will not give way.
This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark.
I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve.
Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill.
Social care workers are among the lowest paid in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living.
Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having been a trade union activist for 40 years and a regional official, I have a genuine sense of pride in seeing the Bill make its way through Parliament. It is truly transformational and seeks to address the imbalance that has existed in the workplace for far too long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing rights so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to frustrate, delay or act unreasonably when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals.
Other amendments, such as new clause 101 in my name, seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers who have hitherto been forgotten or overlooked. My new clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers. Currently, those who employ foster carers—local authorities, charities and independent fostering agencies—also serve as de facto regulators, with the power to register and de-register workers. That puts too much power in the hands of the employers, and, according to the foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, it illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the children and young people in their care.
A new regulatory body would therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised training courses. Once completed, those courses would remain on a carer’s work record. At the moment, every time a foster carer starts with a new provider, they are required to do the training again. That is both unnecessarily costly and time consuming. The body would also be responsible for maintaining a central register of foster care workers, and would ensure proper standards of care and deal with fitness-to-practice cases. As with the very best regulatory bodies, it would include those with lived experience of foster care.
One of the key roles of that proposed body would be to standardise the employment rights available to carers, such as maximum working hours, entitlement to statutory sick pay and protections against unfair dismissal, while also considering the important issue of collective sectoral bargaining. Through that, we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate, now is the time for that basic oversight, which will help to ensure we have enough safe and loving homes for the vulnerable children who need them.
My amendments 316 to 323 relate to the issue of redundancy. Over the years, I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies, and I am seeking to improve the legislation based on that first-hand experience. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they were preparing to make fewer than 20 staff redundant—something that many good employers already do, of course—whereas amendments 317 and 318 would introduce greater sanctions for those who fail to consult properly. Amendment 319 would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire as having been made redundant and would ensure that they receive greater remuneration as a result.
Amendments 320 to 323 all seek to improve the level of redundancy pay by removing the 20-year cap on entitlements; by ensuring that someone with 10 years and six months’ service, for example, receives 11 years’ redundancy pay rather than 10; by basing the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than weeks; and by ensuring those with less than two years’ service also have the right to redundancy payments.
Of course, there are many reasons why redundancies occur, but at the moment, the rules and sanctions around this issue enable some unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation and treat their staff unfairly. These amendments seek to address that imbalance, and I hope the Government will consider ways in which the issues I have highlighted can be included in the legislation.
Nadia Whittome
I am a proud trade unionist, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I commend the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for introducing this landmark legislation, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did a huge amount of work on it as shadow Minister. All of them have dedicated their lives to standing up for working people, and this Bill is a culmination of that work and the work of trade unionists over many, many years.
I would like to speak in support of new clause 73. My own experience of taking time off work as an MP and the contrast with the experience of those on statutory sick pay made it clear just how badly reform is needed. Some years ago, when I needed to take a leave of absence because of the severity of my post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, I received full pay and a phased return, but for many workers, that is a million miles from their experience. The UK has some of the worst sick pay entitlements in Europe. The fact that the Bill means that sick pay will be paid from day one, instead of after day three, is very welcome, as is the removal of the eligibility threshold, increasing access for more than 1 million low-paid workers. However, we must acknowledge that without increasing the rate, the low level of statutory sick pay will continue to place a terrible burden on those who are already poorly paid. That is why amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), is so important.
Those are far from the only issues. Another problem is the inflexibility of statutory sick pay, and that is why I have worked with the mental health charity Mind to table new clause 73. More than 8 million working-age people have long-term health conditions and experience challenges at work. Statutory sick pay currently does not allow for a proper phased return or for workers to reduce their hours during periods of ill health. Statutory sick pay can only be paid for a full day of sickness. If a worker needs a half day, for instance, SSP cannot be used to cover the hours they are not working.
If we force people to return to work before they are ready, whether that is because they cannot afford to remain on statutory sick pay or because a phased return is not an option for them, they are far more likely to be trapped in a cycle of poor mental wellbeing and to fall out of work completely. New clause 73 would mean that sick pay was paid pro rata, by hours rather than days, to allow for that greater flexibility.
Years of successive Government reviews have come to the same conclusion: a flexible statutory sick pay model would improve lives and better support people to remain in work. I have appreciated Ministers’ engagement with me on this issue, and I hope the Government will commit to looking at it further, especially as the cost to the Government would only be administrative. However, the impact it would have on people’s lives is huge.
The Labour movement fought long and hard for the right to sick pay and proper support for those with long-term illness and disability, whether in work or not, because our movement and our party exists to stand up for the whole of the working class. At a time when more people are affected by sickness and disability, it is crucial that this Government support them and do not scapegoat them for the failures and the political choices of the Conservative party.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As a young worker in the late 1980s, I experienced the precarious nature of the world of work, along with many of my peers. Lack of knowledge about our rights and the fear of being sacked if we complained about our terms and conditions politicised me and made me a lifelong trade unionist and a member of Unite and Unison. I wish to speak to new clause 92, on rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers, and new clause 93, entitled “Working Time Regulations 1998: records”, which are tabled in my name. Like most colleagues in this House, and along with the trade union movement and the millions of workers who will benefit from its provisions, I warmly welcome the Bill and thank everyone who has campaigned for it long and hard.
The majority of people spend a huge portion of their lives in work. Work should be an opportunity to be fulfilled, to live fully, to support ourselves and our family, to develop as individuals, and to contribute to society. In reality, however, for too long and for too many the world of work has been, and is, a world of uncertainty and ruthless exploitation, often stripping people of their dignity and their worth. For millions there is a struggle to obtain secure work, and that strengthens the hand of employers to drive a hard bargain to benefit their balance sheet and their profits. For those who can secure work, working life can remain unclear and insecure. It can include irregular and uncertain employment, uncertainty about hours, payment, and vital matters such as holiday pay and entitlement. While others in the House boast of their endless push for so-called flexible labour markets, the reality is very different for those on the other side of the employment contract—for the workers.
The previous Government spoke about cutting so-called red tape, when they really meant reducing people’s working rights and strengthening the powers of boardroom billionaires. My proposed new clauses are in relation to certain sectors, although they would benefit all workers. It is widely known and acknowledged that some employers use so-called rolled-up holiday pay as a device to tackle their obligations to provide paid time off for holidays. Holidays and breaks from work are essential for workers, and a recognised factor in delivering an effective organisation in the public and private sectors. So-called rolled-up holiday pay is a mechanism by which an employer adds holiday pay to basic pay throughout the working year, but does not provide it separately at the time of taking the holiday. It is acknowledged, including by ACAS, that that creates a risk that a worker may feel under pressure not to take any holiday, or to take less holiday than they are entitled to. That is particularly a risk for those who work in sectors of the economy where the work is irregular, and along with that, their work also tends to be lower paid. The pressure on such workers is immense. New clause 92 seeks to address that risk—a risk accepted and addressed by rulings from the European Court of Justice.
New clause 93 would ensure that working time is accurately recorded by employers. Colleagues across the House may recall that the recordkeeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations 1988 were watered down by amendments tabled by the previous Government in November 2023, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. They believed that it was too cumbersome to require employers to maintain accurate records on behalf of employees, referring to it as “time consuming” and “disproportionate reporting.” What a load of rubbish. With advances in modern technology, there is no excuse for an employer to fail to accurately and precisely keep records of the working time contributed by a worker. The onus of managing records should be shifted from employees to allow them to focus on their own roles without added administrative requirements.
This Government’s Employment Rights Bill will deliver a new deal for working people, and I wholeheartedly support it, but I urge the Minister to take account of the issues I have raised and to accept new clauses 92 and 93, which would strengthen the Bill’s provisions and increase protection for the sections of workers who need it the most.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a proud member of Community.
It is an honour to speak as this landmark Bill hopefully passes its next stage, finally bringing to an end an era of insecurity and low pay under the Conservative party. This landmark Bill brings in day one rights for workers, a fair pay agreement for social care workers and greater entitlement to statutory sick pay. My speech will focus on and highlight the way in which the Bill and some of its amendments strengthen the rights of care workers and carers, the majority of whom are women.
We have heard already in this debate many proposals from hon. Members on the Government Benches to go further than the excellent proposals before us to strengthen day one rights for employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke movingly about pregnancy loss and bereavement, and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), talked about the need for stronger entitlements to parental leave. All of that will have a really positive impact, particularly on women.
I draw attention particularly to the day one right that strengthens flexible working by default. I invite the Minister to consider giving guidance to employers that they should require flexible working to be advertised. The Fawcett Society has made a particularly strong case for the importance of that for women, and I know that that is also true for carers. If, before applying for a job, they do not know that they can secure that flexibility, many will not even apply. Some 40% of women who are not currently working said that if flexible work was available to them, it would enable them to do paid work, so we are missing out on huge potential for businesses.
The Fawcett Society survey in 2023 said that 77% of women agreed that they would be more likely to apply for a job that advertises flexible working options, while 30% had had to turn down a job offer when employers were unable to offer the flexible working that they needed. While the Bill makes excellent provisions, I urge the Minister to respond on how we can implement that in practice, so that carers and particularly women can have the confidence to apply for jobs and know that they can have those flexible working requirements.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words about carers. Will she therefore support Liberal Democrat new clause 10, which would make paid carer’s leave an entitlement?
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers in paid employment to remain in employment and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.
That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.
The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.
In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.
The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute.
Anna Dixon
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.
In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure that the 1.5 million people working in adult social care can get fair pay, guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It is good for workers, and it is good for women.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my Unison membership.
I welcome the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation chance to give more power to working people—including those in Ealing Southall—and I support the Government amendments to provide decent sick pay to 1.3 million low-paid workers. I do not support the Opposition’s amendments, which attempt to tie us up in knots in an effort to block working people from getting the rights they should be entitled to.
I particularly want to consider the impact of the Bill and the Government amendments on disabled people. Currently, almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick—a record high. Of course, some of those are disabled people who are unable to work. However, there are also many disabled people who desperately want to work, but who have been kicked out of their job because their employer refused to make simple changes that would allow them to succeed.
In my previous role as national disability officer for the country’s biggest trade union, Unison, we worked with Disability Rights UK and Scope to develop the disability employment charter. That charter is a list of improvements to help disabled people get, and keep, employment. Over 240 employers, both large and small, signed up to say that they backed the ideas in the charter—they backed disabled workers’ rights—but the previous Conservative Government saw it all as red tape. They did not listen, and they refused to introduce those changes. They left millions of disabled people who want to work stuck on benefits, and the Opposition’s amendments today are just more of the same.
Those 240 employers that signed the disability employment charter, and the many disabled workers who have been pushed out of their jobs, will be heartened to see the changes being introduced in the new Employment Rights Bill. Many of those changes implement the demands of the charter, including allowing flexible working, more support for trade union disability reps, and strengthening sick pay. Those 240 employers would reject the Opposition’s many amendments whose aim is to frustrate this support for disabled workers.
People are often surprised to learn that low-paid workers are not entitled to statutory sick pay, and that unless the employer company has its own scheme, they can claim statutory sick pay only after three days of being ill. During the pandemic, that led to social care staff, in particular, feeling forced to work when they had covid, potentially passing the illness on. Lack of access to sick pay is a public health issue, and this new law will ensure that low-paid workers no longer have to choose between not being paid and going to work sick. It will also give disabled workers time off to recover from illness rather than struggling into work., becoming sicker, and potentially falling out of employment for the long term. Being paid to take a few days off to recover could save them, and the economy, a lifetime of being left on the scrapheap.
Deirdre Costigan
No, because many Members are waiting to speak.
I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition, who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.
This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.
However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.
Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Alex Sobel, and ask him to keep his remarks to four minutes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my 28-year membership of the GMB union.
New clause 72, which stands in my name, would place a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns and establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country in which whistleblowers raised the alarm at an early stage only for their warnings to be ignored and for disastrous consequences to follow. Scandals with thousands of victims, such as the Post Office Horizon case, the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion, involved whistleblowers raising the alarm only to face a wall of silence. We saw the very worst of that at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency when Azeem Rafiq suffered years of racist harassment and abuse. Despite the number of players who admitted to racist remarks or actions, the club’s leadership refused to accept their mistakes and refused to release the full report, instead releasing an edited summary. Only when Azeem appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did the full scale of institutional racism at the club become known.
These failures have a tragic human cost, and they often place a significant strain on the taxpayer. According to the report “The Cost of Whistleblowing Failures”, the avoidable costs incurred owing to the failure to listen to whistleblowers in the Post Office Horizon, Carillion and Letby cases was £426 million.
It is unacceptable for the taxpayer to have to bear the burden of failed systems and a failed legislative framework, which is why we need a new legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing. New clause 72 would ensure that employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate any protected disclosure made to them. It would compel large employers to establish internal channels and appropriate procedures for reporting. By ensuring that disclosures are investigated, we can prevent scandals such as Horizon from occurring and ensure that harm in the workplace is dealt with early. The new clause is proudly pro-worker and pro-business, and would tackle one of the long-standing issues with our current whistleblowing legal framework for workers. The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a proud trade union member. I give my full support to the measures in this landmark Bill.
In Derby we make things, from nuclear reactors that power submarines to the trains, cars and aeroplane engines that get people and goods where they need to go, and food production operations that help put food on our tables. We do not just have large companies with big economies of scale; we also have thousands of small and medium-sized companies. Many businesses that I have visited—large and small—are investing in their workforce, want to pay them properly and want to provide stable, secure work that enables their employees to build lives and families, but they want a level playing field so that they are not undercut by competitors that do not play by the rules, that avoid their responsibilities and that exploit those who work for them.
When people are stuck in insecure, low-paid work, planning for their future is impossible. It is wrong that so many people have no idea whether they will have five hours of work or 50 in a week, wrong that they have no idea whether they will earn enough to pay their bills, and wrong that they can have paid for childcare, be on a bus to work and get a call saying they are no longer needed. What is shocking is that we have 2.4 million people in irregular work, such as those on zero-hours or low-hours contracts, or in agency jobs. I am proud that this Government, through this Bill, are taking action to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, and that amendments 32 and 33 will ensure that agency workers are also protected.
On Second Reading of this groundbreaking Bill, I spoke about the importance of enforcement. A right is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced; and the provisions that we make, the guidance that we set and the laws that we pass are only as strong as the enforcement.
For part of my career as a barrister, I had the honour of representing working people, but I always knew that for the many who did seek justice through tribunals, there were many who did not feel able to take action. The Low Pay Commission has found that low-paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about abuses of their rights. Last year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of a Labour Government bringing in the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission estimates that one in five workers receiving it were not provided with the correct pay in 2022.
On Second Reading, I called for the strengthening of the Fair Work Agency, which will enforce the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay and a wide range of rights, such as holiday pay, so that everyone plays by the same rules. I am hugely pleased to see that new clauses have been tabled that would strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Agency. As we will talk about tomorrow, new clause 57 would give the agency powers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal on behalf of workers. That could make a huge difference for workers, and it helps protect businesses from being undercut by acting as a real deterrent. The sooner that these measures are in place, the sooner enforcement can begin and justice can be delivered, and this will bring us better protections, better productivity and better growth.
Justin Madders
First, I think I need to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) is celebrating his 40th birthday today, and what a great way to spend his birthday. He is one of the people who have worked tirelessly over many years in different guises to help us get where we are today.
Given the number of speeches and contributions, it is just not going to be possible to pay tribute to everyone in the time I have, or indeed to reference every speech and every amendment, but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.
I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), whose new clause 73 relates to significant structural changes to the statutory sick pay system. I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech, and I agree with her that phased returns to work are an effective tool in supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce the flow into economic inactivity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence. By removing the waiting period, employees will be entitled to statutory sick pay for every day of work missed. This better enables phased returns to work—for example, by supporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three-day week, being paid SSP for the other two days. That simply would not have been possible under the existing system. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employees and employers to develop and implement a system that is fair, supportive and effective in kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we will continue to have conversations about that.
Turning to new clause 102 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I pay tribute to him for his work as a shadow Minister in this area. The changes we are bringing in through this Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting millions of employees. The new percentage rate is consistent with the structure used for other statutory payments. It is simple to understand and implement, and with the removal of waiting periods, the internal modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that most employees, even those who may nominally earn less per week, will not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.
I believe the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) was her first from the Back Benches, and I do not think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make such contributions. I thought it was an excellent speech, and the way she spoke about her constituent Mr B really hammered home the importance of tackling non-disclosure agreements. I would like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure that victims of misconduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences, and get the help and support they need.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for originally tabling the amendment, and for meeting me last week to share, sadly, another horrific story about the abuse of NDAs. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution in this area.
There are legitimate uses of NDAs, but I want to be clear—we have heard too many examples of this today—that they should not be used to silence victims of harassment or other misconduct. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure equal protection in relation to NDAs concerning harassment across the economy, and I absolutely hear what they have said. However, we have to acknowledge that this would be a far-reaching change, and it would be to take a significant step without properly engaging with workers, employers and stakeholders, and assessing the impact on sectors across the economy. I want to reiterate that I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are an important question that warrants further consideration, and we will continue to look at the issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said that she wants me to go further, and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence.
New clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), would give employees who are special constables the right to time off work to carry out their voluntary police duties. I join him in paying tribute to special constables, who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country. It would not be appropriate, however, to support additional legislation on this matter without a comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated it in Committee and my officials have been in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about the topic. Further engagement is continuing with the staff association for special constables and the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. I recognise that the legislation is now half a century old and needs a considerable look. We cannot support the amendment tonight, but I am glad that there is at least one Member on the Conservative Benches who supports increasing employment rights.
Turning to new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I want to start by recognising the key role that paternal leave plays in supporting working families. The arrival of a child is transformative for all parents. The Government understand and value the vital role that fathers and partners play in raising children, and we want to support them to do that. I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area.
We already have a statutory framework in place that guarantees eligible employed fathers and partners a protected period of paternity leave, ensuring that they cannot be required to work while claiming that leave, or be discriminated against by their employer for taking it. However, I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said about the limitations on those protections. I also pay tribute to her for her work on this issue.
Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or the mother’s partner irrespective of their gender, and the leave can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption. I acknowledge the wider point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is that we need to do more to ensure that the parental leave system as a whole supports working families. As a Government, we have committed to doing that. I recently met The Dad Shift, Pregnant then Screwed and Working Families to discuss that very issue.
Through the Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment, removing any continuity of service requirement. That brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also committed to reviewing the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately from this Bill. Work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery and will commence before Royal Assent. We are scoping the work already under way across the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We of course want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as part of that review process, and I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to engage with us in that respect.
New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), would partially reinstate, to the Equality Act 2010, a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour Government. This Government continue to have sympathy with its aims. We all know that the statutory questionnaire was sometimes found to be a helpful, informative tool. While the Government will not support new clause 6, we will be giving close consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may be needed during this Parliament.
Ms Creasy
I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation?
Justin Madders
I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, so I do not think my hon. Friend need have any worries in that respect.
I pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this issue: my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). They tabled amendments on employment status. It is important to say that we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies. We have been clear that some reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We see consulting on a simpler two-part framework as a longer-term goal, but I assure them both that I remain committed to that. I also hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East says in relation to his concerns about fire and rehire. We will be looking very closely at how our reforms work in practice.
New clause 17 seeks to create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave. New clause 18 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave available for eligible employees. I am pleased to say that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will, for the first time, create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in the Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I am also pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by this Government in kinship care to date and will enable children to be raised within their communities by their extended families.
New clause 10—another Liberal Democrat new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—which we debated in Committee, would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities to be paid their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. While we have stressed the Government’s commitment to supporting employed unpaid carers and I have been engaging with Ministers and relevant bodies on the matter, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 only recently gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with a long-term care need, so we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required.
I recognise that many of their amendments and new clauses come from a good place, but the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are going to be Manchester United or Manchester City; their speeches were littered with concerns about the increase in costs from the Bill, yet every new clause and amendment seems only to add to those costs. I understand that they are coming from a good place, but they have to decide whether or not they support the Bill. I hope they can make that decision before tomorrow night. At least the Liberal Democrats are here, unlike the new kids on the block, who are absent from the Benches behind them—I pay tribute to them for actually turning up today.
I will now address the points raised by the Opposition on harassment, as set out in amendments 288 and 289, in the name of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Those amendments seek either to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s obligations for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties or to remove clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act. Let us be clear: this Government are committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and we must therefore protect employees from third-party harassment.
I want to underline two important points in relation to clause 18. First, on the expectations it places on employers, I would like to assure the House that employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties; instead, employers simply need to do what is reasonable. What is reasonable will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in its workplace are clearly more limited than the steps it can take in respect of its employees, and employment tribunals will, of course, take that into account when considering the facts of the case.
The second point relates to the threshold for what constitutes harassment. Far too often, I have heard objections to clause 18 implying that employers will be liable if their staff are offended by comments made by third parties, which is not the case at all—a fact reflected, I think, by the Conservatives supporting a similar measure in the previous Parliament. In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what evidence there was that this clause was needed. The NHS staff survey for 2023 revealed that a quarter of all staff had suffered harassment, bullying or abuse from patients or service users, while a Unite survey said that 56% of its members had suffered third-party harassment. Presumably that is why UKHospitality, in its written evidence to the Bill Committee, said that it supported the measures in principle. I will work with them to ensure that we protect everyone in the sector, because I believe that everyone who works in this country deserves protection from harassment. I think it is incredible that the Opposition cannot see a problem with arguing against that.
I will turn to new clause 105 on substitution clauses, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). I think it is fair to say that we are aware of the risks. I have been working closely with the Minister for Border Security on illegal working by irregular migrants in the gig economy and the role that substitution clauses play in facilitating that. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office on this issue.
The Opposition also tabled new clause 87, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and economic growth when making any regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government are already laser-focused on this key objective. Our plan to make work pay is a pro-growth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth.
The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low-growth, low-productivity and low-pay economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be laughing, but they are the people who delivered that economy for so many years. International competitors and growth are at the heart of what we do. We will pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill.
On small business support, I remind Members that I had a meeting with representatives from Inkwell, who said that introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create a level playing field for employers. That is exactly what we want to achieve with the Bill. We understand that the best businesses want to look after their staff and that treating them well is good for business, good for workers and good for the wider economy. The Opposition’s narrow view seems to be that anything that is good for workers is automatically bad for businesses. We absolutely reject that analysis.
In conclusion, giving people a baseline of security and respect at work is fundamental. It is clear that we need a change from the system where people do not know what hours they will get from one week to the next, where people with caring responsibilities never get the same benefits of flexibility as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fire and rehire at will, and where care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long. It is time to end these injustices. It is time to make work pay.
Business without Debate
Proposed 24-hour adult gaming centre in Whitby
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about the proposals for a 24-hour casino in Whitby. I hope very much that planning officers take note of the petition, which has been signed on paper by seven of my constituents and online by a further 412. It expresses the concern of Whitby residents about a planning application submitted by Luxury Leisure to open a 24-hour adult gaming centre at Baxtergate in Whitby. They are particularly disappointed that the site of the proposed gaming centre is that of the Halifax bank branch, which is due to close shortly, leaving the town without any bank branches. The petition further declares that what residents of Whitby want is access to banks, shops and services, and not a 24-hour gaming centre. It states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council to reject the application for a 24-hour adult gaming centre at the site on Baxtergate, Whitby.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby,
Declares that residents of Whitby are very strongly concerned that a planning application has been made by the slots and gambling company, Luxury Leisure, to open a 24-hour adult gaming centre at 67-68 Baxtergate in Whitby; further declares that the gaming centre may cause issues with noise and anti-social behaviour; notes that, as at 6 March 2025, North Yorkshire Council has received 522 objections to the application, whereas only 6 people have supported it; further notes that residents are particularly disappointed that the site of the proposed gaming centre is that of the Halifax bank branch, which is due to close in May 2025, leaving the town without any bank branches; and further declares that what residents of Whitby want is access to banks, shops and services, and not the proposed 24-hour gaming centre.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council to reject the application for a 24-hour adult gaming centre at the site on Baxtergate, Whitby.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003052]
European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this Adjournment debate?
Today is 11 March, and on every 11 March since the dreadful bombings in Madrid in 2004, it has been the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. This occasion gives us the opportunity to reflect on terror and the innocent victims of terror. It gives the House the opportunity to reflect on the impact that acts of terror have had on the institution of the House of Commons.
When I was elected in 2015, I entered Parliament alongside Jo Cox, who is memorialised behind me. She was cut down by a far-right extremist. I served for many a year with David Amess and had a great relationship with him, and he was struck down by an Islamic terrorist. When you look to either side of the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will note that under the door there are three heraldic plaques: one to Rev. Robert Bradford, one to Ian Gow and one to Airey Neave, all of whom were serving parliamentarians when they were cut down by Irish republican terrorists. It is little known that behind your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two further plaques: one to Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in the Brighton bomb by Irish republican terrorists, and one to Sir Henry Wilson, a first world war hero and latterly an Irish Unionist Member of Parliament, who was cut down by Irish republican terrorists.
Occasions like this give us the opportunity to reflect, but it is important for us as parliamentarians to consider what we can do in the best interests of those we represent, and the legacy in Northern Ireland continues to be a sore that has not healed. The scars remain among communities of whatever constitutional aspiration, who have been affected by the onslaught of terror that we faced.
I am privileged to sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but I was even more privileged last week, alongside colleagues who are present in the Chamber today, to meet a number of organisations that represent the interests of innocent victims. We met the 174 Trust, and we met victims at the WAVE Trauma Centre. We met victims represented by the South East Fermanagh Foundation—SEFF—which is an organisation that works on behalf of Fermanagh and Enniskillen victims. The most profound thing that they said to us was that, within their county of Fermanagh, 42 people were killed—40 of them by republican terrorists, and none by loyalists.
The people of Fermanagh did not turn to taking the law into their own hands; they put their trust and faith in law and order, and in the parts of our state that are there to protect us. That is most profound, because there is no other county in Northern Ireland where that can be said. There was one recurring theme throughout the engagement that we had during the course of those two days: victims wanted truth and justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this issue. His passion for victims is long-standing and admirable. Does he agree that we need to set in stone the truth about victims in Northern Ireland? For all the attention that is given to 10% of victims, the families of the 90% suffer in silence. Will this day ensure that true victims’ stories are told and remembered without any whitewashing whatsoever?
Gavin Robinson
I appreciate the intervention because there is a task on the part of the Government, with the legislation they are considering at the moment, on storytelling, reconciliation and the narrative that people wish to share. Their truth must be told and their truth known.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; I know his time is precious. I want to associate myself with the remarks he made about Members of this House who were lost and about the moving visit we had last week with victims in Belfast and Fermanagh in relation to people who were murdered by perpetrators from various sides of the conflict. It showed their continuing pain and their fortitude, as the opening weeks of the Omagh inquiry have done. The SDLP supports a parallel Dublin inquiry on that. Does the right hon. Member agree with me that, in the current legacy discussion, a moment—an opportunity—is coming when we can assert that the needs of victims, not those of perpetrators, have primacy, and that we cannot afford to squander that opportunity?
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Lady. I think she is right that we cannot squander the opportunity, but for too long now I have heard voices within the Government say that the one thing the parties of Northern Ireland can agree on is their opposition to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, but for very different reasons. Very often, we do not get the opportunity to fully explore those very different reasons, and for our part, we will never stand in the way of justice and we will always support innocent victims.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate on such a moving subject. I, too, was very honoured to go with him and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to visit SEFF in Fermanagh last week, and it was profoundly moving. Does he agree with me that, as part of dealing with this legacy, truth, justice and reconciliation must be intentional parts of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery going forward?
Gavin Robinson
It was interesting to hear the reflections of some who said, “Why do I need to reconcile? I’ve been blown up. I’ve been shot. I’ve lost my father, my mother, my sister, my brother. Why is the onus on me to reconcile? I should be honoured for the sacrifice that I’ve made or been forced to go through, but where is somebody coming along to say, ‘I’m sorry. You did not deserve what occurred to you or your family member, you didn’t need to live through the pain and you don’t deserve the scars that you bear.’?” So I agree with the hon. Member entirely that much more focus is required on reconciliation.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As someone who had the honour of hosting an event on this day for all the years I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I commend the right hon. Member for securing this debate. However, does he agree with me that one of the most abiding and insidious hurts to victims of terrorism is the constant glorification of those who made them victims, particularly when it comes to those who sit in Government in Northern Ireland, by their attendance at events commemorating those who were the men of blood and who delivered death and destruction on our streets? Is that not one of the most hateful and insidious things that can be done to a victim, with the re-traumatisation that it brings?
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I have two things to say to him on that. First, I am glad he organised—for 13 years, I think—an event at Stormont to mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Such an event also occurred yesterday, so his legacy lives on, and I was pleased to attend it, as I have on many occasions in the past.
Secondly, the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet again—we met last week, but I met again yesterday—Margaret Veitch and Ruth Blair, who lost loved ones in the Enniskillen bomb. I reflected with them, and it resonates so much with this point, on the glorification of terror, particularly from those who have a responsibility to live by the Nolan principles and to fulfil the political offices they hold, yet who attend commemorations and glorify those who revelled in terror. The excuse they always use is, “We have a right to remember our dead.” That is what they say: they have a right to remember their dead. Margaret and Ruth lost family members by simply turning up to remember their war dead on Remembrance Sunday in Enniskillen, yet they hear their political leaders say, “We do this because we have an entitlement to remember our war dead.” Margaret and Ruth and their parents were offered no opportunity to remember, rightfully, those who made the sacrifice for freedom in our country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of truth and justice. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. If prosecutions carry on, people will do everything they can to cover up the truth in defending themselves. When people criticise the legacy Act, which did propose a truth and reconciliation commission, are they not really criticising a measure that would have given them a much better opportunity for the truth to come out, once the threat of prosecutions was removed, given that the punishment would not fit the crime even if someone was found guilty?
Gavin Robinson
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.
I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.
I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.
Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.
The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.
What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.
That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.
The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What concerns many people in Northern Ireland is that often, when things happen in Northern Ireland that are of a particular disposition, the Republic of Ireland’s Government will weigh in heavily to press our Government to do certain things. However, it seems that on many occasions when things happen on which our Government should make representations to the Republic’s Government, they fail adequately to do so.
Gavin Robinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.
Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate.
Gavin Robinson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took that intervention because it was a powerful point, and I am grateful for your latitude.
I am delighted that the Minister is here this evening. I hope that she responds positively. I hope that she recognises the pain and the anguish, as she herself has met individuals in Northern Ireland. There is a long way to go on providing the answers, the truth and the justice. We will not be found wanting, and I hope the Labour Government will not either.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate this evening. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on securing it and on speaking so eloquently and powerfully on what is for so many people a painful and difficult subject.
As the right hon. Member described, acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom have had a devastating and unimaginable impact on the individuals, families and communities affected. Indeed, that violence has been brought to our very doorstep, and we stand in solemn remembrance of the Members of this House taken from us by acts of terrorism while representing their constituents. Most recently, as the right hon. Member mentioned, they include Jo Cox, brutally murdered in 2016, and Sir David Amess, brutally murdered in 2021. Both died while serving their constituents. I knew them both, as the right hon. Member did, and miss them, and I feel their loss very personally. Those whom we have sadly lost to terrorism are forever remembered, by their families, by their loved ones and by a nation that stands still, and importantly stands together, when these tragedies occur.
As the right hon. Member said, acts of terrorism have had a pronounced effect on communities in Northern Ireland, where over 3,000 people were killed by terrorists during the course of the troubles. Behind every individual murder are the countless family members and others whose lives are changed forever by unthinkable loss in heartbreaking circumstances. I have listened to many of those harrowing stories personally.
Recent research reminds us that as many as 30% of people in Northern Ireland have conflict-related trauma, and that this can be passed down the generations, too, and we must never forget that. Thankfully, today Northern Ireland is a place of relative peace and stability. However, the threat from terrorism remains, with the current threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism assessed as substantial.
I wish to pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services that continue to work tirelessly to keep us safe. I had the privilege of attending the Police Federation for Northern Ireland awards last week in Belfast to celebrate and honour the bravery of some of the exceptional officers who put their lives on the line for us every day.
In Northern Ireland, many groups mark a day of reflection on 21 June to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by the troubles and reflect on what more we can do. Sadly, memorials, remembrance and commemoration can be challenging and even divisive. That is why this Government, in seeking to address the legacy of the troubles, are committed to bringing forward a memorialisation strategy to support inclusive structures and initiatives to help all in Northern Ireland, including future generations, to reflect on those lost. And we will continue to work to support those civil society groups that are working tirelessly to promote reconciliation.
The right hon. Member mentioned SEFF and the WAVE Trauma Centre, which came to Westminster. Many are the subject of portraits in the “Silent Testimony” exhibition by Colin Davidson, which is in the National Portrait Gallery. I recommend Members pay a visit there.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) securing this debate. As part of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee I met victims from all sides last week, but I especially wanted to highlight the incredible work of WAVE in supporting victims of terrorism. Does the Minister agree that those organisations are crucial for supporting victims from all sides, and we should do all we can to support them?
Fleur Anderson
I agree, and I am glad that WAVE and SEFF have been mentioned this evening. NHS services are also vital for specialist trauma counselling, such as the regional trauma network, which I visited with Minister Nesbitt.
On the legacy Act, acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims of violence was an important aim of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but I agree that the task remains incomplete. The Government take their responsibility to victims and survivors of the troubles extremely seriously, which is why we have been working with victims, survivors and all interested parties to correct the mistakes of the last Government, and to put in place measures that will provide answers, accountability and acknowledgment for families who have waited too long already.
In December, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland laid a draft remedial order to correct several of the human rights deficiencies of the legacy Act, including removing the bitterly opposed conditional immunity scheme, which would have granted immunity from prosecution for those who carried out the most appalling terrorist crimes. The Secretary of State will introduce primary legislation that will reform and strengthen the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government was pleased that the ombudsman recently returned to work following an extended period of absence. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the legal proceedings, but for families who are waiting to receive the ombudsman’s reports, I understand the concern and frustration with publication delays. Many families have already encountered too much delay in seeking information and accountability. I know that the ombudsman’s office is doing all that it can to publish reports.
Fleur Anderson
I am afraid I do not have time, because I want to respond to the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East raised.
The right hon. Member rightly highlighted that a number of troubles-related cases have a cross-border dimension, including the Kingsmill murders, which are an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians during the troubles. It is right to acknowledge that the implementation of truly holistic legacy mechanisms, which can provide families across the UK and Ireland with as much information as possible about the circumstances of their particular case, will require the co-operation of both the UK and Irish Governments to facilitate the disclosure of information held by authorities in both jurisdictions. This Government consider the Irish Government to be an essential partner in the process of seeking a way forward on legacy issues that is human rights compliant and can command public confidence across communities.
Turning to the Omagh bombing inquiry, last month’s commemorative hearings were a painful reminder of the impact of cowardly terrorist actions on communities and families. Victims do not need hearings, inquiries or commemorative days to know that; they live with it every day. The Secretary of State has received political assurances from the Irish Government on their full co-operation with the UK inquiry. That is important and should be welcomed. The Irish Government are currently working at pace to determine how to facilitate that in practice through a memorandum of understanding. The right hon. Gentleman’s comments in the Chamber today will not have gone unnoticed. The details of those arrangements are ultimately a matter for the inquiry, which rightly is independent of the Government, but I agree with him that they should provide for the greatest possible level of co-operation from Irish authorities. The Government look forward to seeing those details in due course. In the meantime, our focus remains on ensuring that the UK inquiry that has been established can successfully fulfil its terms of reference.
I close by remembering all those who have been killed by cowardly terrorist acts. I pay tribute to everyone who is carrying on—not getting over what happened, but getting on and working around the gap of the people they lost, or of their own life that they had before, despite the grief that can engulf them. They are getting up every day when it is not getting easier, remembering people who should be here and are not. They are not giving up on getting answers and justice for their relatives, families and friends. In the memory of all who have died, we will keep taking action against terrorism and for peace and justice. We will remember.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025.
This draft order was laid before the House on 5 February. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan.
The scale and urgency of the skills challenge, which my noble Friend the Minister for Skills and I have been debating with Members in this House and the other place over recent weeks, are clear. It is also clear that the solution lies not just with the Government, but in working in partnership with everyone who can scale up the necessary skilled workforce to deliver the growth, opportunity and homes needed by all.
The Construction Industry Training Board is one of those essential partners. I say “essential” because Mark Farmer’s recently published independent review of both remaining industry training boards reinforces the need to continue with the levy-funded model of construction skills provision. The levy remains important to a fragmented industry that is characterised by high levels of self-employment, contracting and project work, which often create a disincentive for employers to train and develop their workforce.
If approved, the draft order will generate almost £224 million in 2025-26, which will be ringfenced for construction training and will support an estimated 67,000 assessable employers. Established in 1964 with a remit across England, Scotland and Wales, the CITB is energised by our ambition to build 1.5 million homes, provide up to 5 million home upgrades and provide a skills system that provides opportunity for all.
I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review of the draft order. Little has been amended in the previous 2022-23 year order: levy assessment rates, which were heavily consulted on, remain the same. Companies that directly employ workers will continue to pay 0.35% of those employee earnings. It is right that companies that contract workers, and so do not bear associated staffing costs, pay a greater share towards the pool of trained individuals. Their levy rate remains at 1.25% of the contract payments paid to indirectly employed workers.
What have changed are the thresholds that ensure that smaller organisations that employ fewer people are exempt from the levy or given a 50% reduction in levy fees. The increases in exemptions and reductions in thresholds are designed to avoid penalising companies whose staff wages have increased since the previous order in 2022. Employers with an annual wage bill below £135,000—the CITB estimates that this is 69% of in-scope employers—are exempt from paying any levy at all. A further 15% of employers will be eligible to pay just half of their levy rate, and this applies to companies with a wage bill between £135,000 and £449,999.
A laudable feature of the CITB levy is that exempt employers, or those that pay reduced levy rates, are still eligible to claim full CITB support. The few larger construction companies support the many sole traders and small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the majority of the sector. Put simply, 84% of in-scope employers are either exempt from paying the levy or will pay just half of the levy, but they can still benefit from the full training support available.
I know hon. Members will be keen to understand how those in scope of these payments feel about the additional levy that the law puts upon them. Last year’s general election delayed the publication of the much-anticipated Mark Farmer review, which I have mentioned. The CITB felt it was unreasonable to complete its usual engagement with the industry through its in-depth and lengthy consensus process while the outcome of the review was still unknown. Instead, the CITB sought views on the one-year proposal from its 14 prescribed organisations, sector federations representing around 30% of all levy-paying employers and the nation councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority were supportive, and neither the CITB nor my Department has encountered opposition since that targeted engagement. With the ITB review and the CITB’s “Strategic Plan 2025-29” now published, the industry is in a much stronger position to reach a consensus on the 2026 proposals and make informed decisions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The draft order’s preamble mentions that the Government have consulted Scottish Ministers. Can the Minister say whether the Scottish Government support these proposals? Did they make any contrary suggestions?
Janet Daby
I can confirm that both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government were consulted, and neither objected.
This draft order will enable the CITB to continue raising extra revenue from those in the construction sector who benefit most from its growth. This will be reinvested into our skilled construction workforce to support the sector to build Britain’s future.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This statutory instrument effectively kicks the can down the road for a year while the Government come to a decision on the CITB’s future. That is obviously not ideal from the sector’s point of view, but I can see that it gives the Government time to think.
The Opposition thank Mark Farmer for his thorough and very frank review, and for his analysis of the big challenges facing the sector in building a proper skills pipeline. His recommendations for a “fundamental reset” were very clear, including merging the two remaining ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for both construction and engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The Department for Education has already said in response that it will not merge the two ITBs.
I have some questions I would like answered today. I appreciate that it can be difficult for Ministers to answer everything in these short debates, but I would be very grateful if the Minister undertook to write on some of these issues if there is no time to answer today.
In its briefing for this debate, the CITB explained that £143 million, or more than 12% of all the funds raised from the levy over the lifetime of this Parliament, will be spent on
“running the business, including grant and levy administration”.
That equates to about £28 million a year. Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate? If not, what share would be appropriate?
My second question is about the Government’s emerging thinking on the CITB. The Farmer review noted that the CITB had delivered useful training, but
“it is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires”.
Specifically, the review said that the CITB had too little focus on upskilling the existing workforce, did not police well enough how levy funds were used, and needed a clear, modular, unitised system of qualifications. Can the Minister say anything about her emerging thinking on the future of the CITB?
A third question is about the growth and skills levy. The Government have said that they will allow employers to take funds out of the current apprenticeship levy to spend on things that are not apprenticeships. The Secretary of State for Education has recently talked about allowing 50% of funds to be spent in that way.
Other things equal, of course, we will end up with fewer apprenticeships if we take a lot of money out of apprenticeships. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction? What will that do to the number of apprenticeship starts and participation? There is an overlap between the apprenticeship levy and the CITB levy for firms in this industry. If, for example, it turns out that employers are allowed to take out 50%, what would that do to the number of apprenticeships in construction? I ask not least because the CITB has identified apprenticeships as a key route into the sector.
Fourthly, what assessment has the Minister made of the extraordinary joint appeal by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment to be exempt from the Government’s plans to cut level 7 apprenticeships? Those organisations say that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s plans and that cutting level 7 apprenticeships in this sector will be bad for upskilling existing workers and will be particularly bad for access to the profession for less well-off people.
Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull so that less well-off people can get top-level jobs in these very important professions? I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, but if not, I hope she will write to us.
Janet Daby
I will endeavour to answer those four questions. As the shadow Minister has suggested, if there are any questions I am unable to answer, he is welcome to write to me, or I can write to him.
This mission-led Government are kick-starting economic growth, delivering on net zero commitments and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England during this Parliament for the growth mission, delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.
In 2023, as the shadow Minister is aware, Mark Farmer was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the two remaining industry training boards, the engineering construction ITB and the construction ITB. That was part of the standard cycle of Cabinet Office reviews of public bodies. As I have said, the review’s publication was delayed until 30 January 2025 due to a lengthy fact-checking process and the need to consider our response in the light of our missions following the general election. A headline finding was that the construction and engineering construction sectors face common strategic workforce challenges. The review recommended merging the ITBs to focus on improving workforce resilience across both sectors.
As we press ahead with delivering 1.5 million homes, now would be the wrong time to distract the construction sector by consulting on changes to legislation. What the sector needs now is continued investment in skills and training to create a larger and more effective workforce. We are driving that through increased voluntary collaboration between ITBs, initially focused on the commonality of purpose in infrastructure, as demonstrated by the recent signing of the skills charter by both ITBs and Sizewell C. There is no immediate plan to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB levy is specific to the construction industry. It has a wider remit on the types of training that can be funded, such as providing grants to deliver training to existing staff to meet any construction-related training needs, as well as setting sector occupational standards to assure the quality of qualifications.
The CITB has also used its levy funding to address barriers specific to the construction industry, including the creation of a new entrant support team. This mainly supports smaller businesses to identify appropriate training, and it provides mentoring and other support for learners. In less than a year, NEST has supported 2,506 distinct employers and 5,230 apprentices. Of those apprentices, 96.6% remain on their training or have achieved their apprenticeship, which is an excellent result. The ITBs are working with the Department for Education as the growth and skills offer is further defined, to ensure that ITB levy-funded training complements that provision. As I have already said, there are no immediate plans to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB’s running costs are currently at 15% and include the cost of administering the levy, grants and funding schemes for employers. Its underlying corporate costs—including human resources, finance and other back office services—are at 10%. The 2023 ITB review recommended that there should be more transparency on the ITBs’ funding costs, that their corporate service costs should be benchmarked against suitable comparators, and that both ITBs should look to make 5% efficiency savings. In 2023-24, the CITB made efficiency savings of 11.3%. The Government agree with those recommendations, and a steering group will be convened to monitor their implementation.
The Department for Education’s response to the ITB review is on the Government website. We have accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations. Where the Department has partially accepted the recommendations, or accepted them in principle, it is because the recommendations are complex and are likely to require additional scoping of form and function. In some cases, consultation with the industry is likely to be required.
We must see a step change in construction skills delivery to achieve many of the Government’s infrastructure and housing ambitions. Over the next 12 months, we will work with ITBs and other Government Departments through a cross-departmental steering group to scope the different ways of implementing the more complex recommendations. All that work will need to be carried out before final policy decisions can be made on whether to fully accept and implement the recommendations. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister on his other financial points.
This draft order is designed to enable the CITB to concentrate on its job at hand, which is turning the dial on the provision of a growing and skilled construction workforce, alongside everything else this Government and industry will also bring to the table. The CITB levy ensures that the construction industry invests in training and skills. It provides businesses of all sizes with access to ringfenced funding estimated at almost £224 million over the next financial year. Hon. Members will know that we cannot afford to turn down such investment, given our ambition for growth and our ambition to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Neil O’Brien
I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for raising that again—I had it in my notes. Further information on the level 7 apprenticeships will shortly be made available to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Haddiscoe gravel pit application
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 20 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 20 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few housekeeping announcements. Will everybody ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent. I remind hon. Members that tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.
We are due to continue line-by-line consideration. I am asked to remind Members that interventions should be short, and should raise points of clarification or ask questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who do wish to give a speech should bob, please—we are not mind readers—and continue to do so throughout the debate in which they take part unless and until they are called.
When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to each other in any circumstances. Debate should be through the Chair.
Members may find it convenient to know that the Committee will be sit this afternoon and until 8 o’clock this evening. Please bear in mind that if there are Divisions on the Floor of the House and the sitting is not adjourned, then it will be suspended for the Division, which means that Members will have to come back even if the witching hour of 8 o’clock has passed. At that point, Members will sit again until the adjournment is moved formally. That can be done only when the floor is vacated, not in the middle of a speech.
Tomorrow morning, I shall be in the Chair; I shall also take the Chair at 5 o’clock tomorrow afternoon. Divisions in the House are expected tomorrow evening. There are six hours of protected business tomorrow evening, so those votes could again come up until and including 8 o’clock, or possibly even later if there is a statement or two. I have also indicated that I am willing, if necessary, to sit through the night. If the Committee chooses to sit very late, as a courtesy I expect to be notified in order that the people who really matter—the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and the Hansard writers—have a chance to be informed and organise their lives accordingly. I hope all that is clear.
We will now continue our debate on amendment 301 in the name of Rachael Maskell.
Clause 8
Second doctor’s assessment (independent doctor)
Amendment proposed (5 March): 301, in clause 8, page 4, line 39, leave out “7” and insert “14”.—(Naz Shah.)
This amendment would increase the period of reflection to 14 days.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 317, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out “14” and insert “28”.
This amendment would provide 28 days for the second period of reflection instead of 14.
Amendment 314, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out
“48 hours beginning with that day”
and insert
“7 days beginning with that day and the person must be referred immediately for urgent specialist palliative care.”
This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.
Amendment 315, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “48 hours” and insert “7 days”.
This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am looking forward to this week’s debating.
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to further evidence that has come in since the debate got under way. Since we started the Committee, we have had more than 400 pieces of evidence, so I apologise for not having got to this earlier, but it is relevant. I do not want people who have submitted evidence to us to feel that their submissions have fallen into a black hole and are not being considered, and I think this is significant evidence. We are talking about the necessity of a proper period of reflection, which is acknowledged in the Bill—it is understood that it is inappropriate for people to be able to request and receive an assisted death in very short order. The debate is about the extent of that reflection period. I am supporting amendments that suggest that we need slightly longer in some cases.
I want to refer to two pieces of the evidence that has come in. One is from six palliative care doctors who wrote that
“our experience is that many patients experience a period of adjustment to ‘bad news’ and may say that they cannot live under these conditions. However, after a period of reflection and adjustment, the majority come to find peace and value in their altered life circumstance, in a way they would not have believed possible. This may often take many weeks and sometimes short months. It is our profound concern that the two ‘periods of reflection’…would not allow time for this adjustment. This is even more so the case where these periods of reflection are reduced for patients predicted to have an even shorter prognosis. It is thus a reality that patients and their families may miss out on a period of life they would have valued by seeking to end their lives prematurely, and these days, weeks and perhaps even months will never be regained.”
The other piece of evidence is from Tom Pembroke and Clea Atkinson, who are experts in hepatology and palliative care in Cardiff. They raised the problems of the seven-day reflection period where there is alcohol misuse. I do not think this topic came up in last week’s debate, but it is worth acknowledging because liver disease is the most common cause of death for people in middle age. It is also worth noting that liver disease disproportionately affects the people who are most disadvantaged in our society. These experts say:
“Prognostication in advanced liver disease is challenging as management of the underlying causes, including abstinence from alcohol, potentially reverses advanced liver failure…The neurocognitive and depressive effects of alcohol misuse disorder frequently requires more than seven days to resolve following abstinence. Advanced liver disease frequently manifests with hepatic encephalopathy which can affect the ability to make informed decisions.”
Their concern is that
“A seven-day review period is not sufficient to ensure that there is an enduring wish to die which is not influenced by alcohol misuse.”
Considering the prevalence of alcohol misuse in our society, the extent to which so many people tragically die of it and the difficulties in prognostication, I suggest to the Committee that there is a particular argument to be made for extending that short period at the end for the expedited process that is being considered. I beg the Committee to consider accepting the amendment.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Roger.
Amendment 301 would prolong the first period of reflection, after which point the independent doctor can conduct the second assessment. In the original draft of the Bill, the first period of reflection is seven days, but the amendment would extend that period to 14 days. That means 14 days would have to pass between the time that the co-ordinating doctor has made their statement following the first assessment, and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.
Amendment 317 would increase the duration of the period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration from 14 days to 28 days. It relates to cases where a person’s death is not reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration.
Amendments 314 and 315 would increase the duration of the second period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration, in cases where a person’s death is reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration, from 48 hours to seven days. They would also introduce a requirement for a mandatory immediate referral for urgent specialist palliative care. The requirement would be introduced into the definition of the second period of reflection. It is unclear what impact it would have on the duration of the period of reflection. The amendments do not say who should be responsible for making the referral or where it should be recorded. The drafting is also ambiguous as to what happens if a person does not consent to such a referral or care.
I hope these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments put forward by various Members. Whether these amendments should form part of the Bill is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I have nothing to add on this group of amendments. I am confident that the Bill as drafted already includes significant periods of reflection. Bearing in mind that we are putting dying people through a very lengthy process already, I remain confident that the periods of reflection are adequate as set out in the Bill.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I have a couple of additional comments. We talked last week about the reflection periods. I referred to the fact that when even someone buys something from a shop, they have 28 days to return it; when they are deciding on whether to have an assisted death, there is a great deal more at stake. During that debate, someone asked, “What if someone had a prognosis of just one month?”, but clause 13 has an option for a fast-track process in that situation—the person would be able to access the service in 48 hours.
I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, who said that we have enough reflection periods in the Bill. Yes, there are reflection periods, but they come after the panel’s decision. The reality is that the NHS is under so much duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that getting an appointment with another GP in seven days is unlikely; it is unlikely to happen given how uncommon that is at the moment. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to prioritise those who require medical intervention to keep them well, to prevent hospital admission, or to stop them deteriorating or even dying.
The Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. In some cases, a medical appointment may need to take priority over an appointment for an assisted death. If someone who is dying has longer—even just a further week—in which to reflect, it removes the pressure from GPs and consultants, and enables them to prioritise properly their patients. It does not build up false expectation in patients that they have a right to a rapid consultation process. Likewise, we know that it can currently take a few weeks for patients to see another consultant, if not months or even over a year. It is therefore more helpful for the patient to have a more realistic period of reflection before moving to the next stage of their assessment.
Issues of such intensity as someone planning to take their own life should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions and conversations can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given this opportunity. In their first raising the matter with a doctor, the doctor would have provided a lot of information about alternatives to the patient, such as what treatment options would be available. Perhaps they would have had a discussion with a palliative medicine consultant to review their options. There needs to be time for a patient to really reflect on all this new information. If the patient does want to explore assisted dying, there will also be all the conversations about drugs and their impact, which we will come to when we discuss later clauses.
Amendment 317 to clause 13 seeks to increase the reflection period from 14 days to 28 days. I gently suggest that we should have the reflection period before the decision, whether it be by the judge or a panel, to give people the right amount of time to consider; currently, the reflection period is afterwards. This is such a monumental decision that people should be able to contemplate all other options available. As it is, the process is rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of concentrating on getting through the stages. I appreciate that others have suggested that once we have got past that stage, with the paperwork and all those things out of the way, then there is time to reflect. During the process, however, the patient has not had time to consider the options in making their decision. I am not convinced that there is enough reflection during, as opposed to after, the process.
Amendment 314 seeks to increase the reflection period from 48 hours to seven days for patients who have been given a month to live. In that case, seven days is quite adequate time to reflect on the information they have received to make informed choices. If this is about autonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has talked about many a time, it is important for people to have choices. To have that autonomy is surely to have the options in front of us and be able to consider them in detail.
In considering whether to sit on this Bill Committee, I slept on the decision. I can usually make instantaneous decisions, but knowing the amount of work, knowing that I was new to the subject, and knowing the things that I knew then—not the things that I know now—it was a big decision for me. I was even thinking about how I would manage the workload. We are talking about something that is not at all comparable. We are talking about somebody who will be taking a decision to potentially exercise the right—if the Bill becomes law—to an assisted death. That is really important for me.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.
Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—
(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and
(b) give a copy of the report to—
(i) the person who was assessed,
(ii) the coordinating doctor,
(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and
(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.
(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—
(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);
subsection (2)(a)
(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;
(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—
(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;
(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;
(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;
(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;
(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 348, in clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”
This amendment would ensure that the independent doctor communicates the outcome of their assessment to the referring doctor as well as the usual or treating doctor.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 303, in clause 8, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“(aa) has confirmed that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”
This amendment would prevent a patient from seeking multiple assessments from different doctors.
Amendment 458, in clause 10, page 6, line 45, after “declaration” insert “and if there has been a material change of circumstances,”
Amendment 459, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) (a) Where a referral is made to a registered medical practitioner under subsection (1), the coordinating doctor must provide that new registered medical practitioner with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal.
(b) If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree.
(c) Those two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under this Act and to the Commissioner.”
Amendment 460, in clause 10, page 7, line 9, leave out “particular”.
Danny Kruger
This is a key group of amendments. I shall specifically speak to amendment 303, which would prevent a person from seeking multiple assessments from alternative doctors if a second assessment had already been undertaken. I am not sure that I will press that amendment to a vote, but it is important to explore this issue. I will take the view of the Committee on it.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire said that it was important to avoid doctor-shopping. He made that point in reference to the suggestion that there would be a list of professionals that would administer the procedure. I respect that view; I think it is absolutely right. It needs to be clear in law that we avoid doctor-shopping. For that reason, it is important that the independent doctor should seek to establish whether the patient has previously had a second assessment. That could be very material.
Clause 10 states:
“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person, the coordinating doctor may make only one referral for a second opinion under subsection (1).”
This only limits the number of times that a person can seek another medical assessment. Amendment 303 to clause 8, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) , would further strengthen the current safeguards against doctor-shopping, by placing a duty on the doctor to confirm that there had not been previous assessments.
Doctor shopping is not a hypothetical concern. We have seen it take place in other jurisdictions. An understanding develops that some doctors are more likely to grant an application for an assisted death. That is totally natural. Professor Preston said in oral evidence to us:
“People go doctor shopping—they are going to multiple doctors until they get the right answer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 245, Q315.]
According to an official report in 2021, one Oregon doctor wrote one eighth of all the prescriptions for assisted death. I met a doctor in Canada who had performed hundreds of assisted suicides. It was her whole practice; that was what she did, and people knew to go to her.
Doctors who are reluctant to grant an application may instead refer a person to doctors they know are more likely to grant the person’s application for an assisted death, so those practitioners become the go-to when other doctors deny applications. Over time, the safeguards can become weakened and circumvented by a system of doctors who apply the criteria quite loosely, as was found in Ontario. The Ontario review committee found evidence of patients doctor shopping for approval. Some 8% of non-terminally ill people who died by assisted dying had made previous requests. People do try again, naturally enough, if they do not get the answer they wanted.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will address in later debates the point that insufficient attention will be given to the reasons why an application has been refused. If an application has been refused on the grounds of coercion, a future doctor will not necessarily know that that was the reason. As the hon. Lady says, in cases of coercive control there is a very real danger that if a person has been unduly influenced to seek an assisted death and the doctor declines their application, possibly because they detected coercive control, the patient can then be coerced, or influenced, into starting again with a new doctor. There is nothing to stop that in the Bill. We have a real problem, and I hope the Committee will consider the amendments.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak to my amendments 458 to 460, which would tighten the process around seeking a determination from a second independent doctor if the first has refused to say that the criteria are met. The amendments relate to clause 10, which I will say more about when we come to it, but they have been selected for debate in this group.
The risks of abuse in seeking a second independent doctor’s opinion are well illustrated by the evidence we have received from Dr Sharon Quick, the president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, who tells us about the experience of Dr Charles Bentz, who refused to provide a second opinion for a physician-assisted suicide for a patient he had referred to an oncologist for cancer treatment. The co-ordinating doctor persisted and clearly found a compliant second opinion, as two weeks later his patient was dead.
Dr Charles Bentz said in his testimony:
“I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.
During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the medical oncologist called me and asked me to be the ‘second opinion’ for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses ‘work very well’ for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.
I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did not concur. I was very concerned about my patient’s mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma. When I reviewed his chart, the radiation oncologist documented a clear diagnosis of depression.
My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague who failed to recognize and treat his depression. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several questions that I have had to answer.”
I appreciate that, under the Bill, Dr Bentz could not have been the independent doctor as he already knew the patient and was treating him, but in that case that contributed to enhanced safety. Dr Bentz’s example illustrates the real risks of abuse in a person being able to seek the opinion of a second independent doctor. The starting point is that the task of the independent doctor is not that of a normal doctor. It is not to cure the patient or to provide advice about medical treatments: it is to check whether the eligibility requirements are met. It is a decision-making function, not a medical one—albeit, of course, a decision-making function that is informed by medical expertise.
In the light of that function, it is not appropriate for someone to seek another decision simply because they do not like the answer that has been given. The independent doctor is asked to apply an objective set of criteria against the evidence in front of them in order to make an assessment. It is not the case—or it should not be—that a different doctor would come to a different assessment based on the same criteria and the same evidence. If we are doing our job properly in the Committee, we should not expect that a second opinion could be arrived at.
I have no objection to provision being made for a person to see a second independent doctor if the first did not manage to finish the task. Nor do I object in respect of cases in which there is a change of circumstances—for example, if the patient’s condition deteriorates to such a degree that although the first independent doctor thought the six-month prognosis test was not met, it becomes clear that it is met—which is the point of my amendment 458. In such circumstances, it would make sense to allow the patient to go to a second independent doctor. Although my preference in such a situation would be to go back to the original independent doctor and ask them to reconsider in the light of the change of circumstances, that may not always be possible. Amendment 458 is an attempt to find a middle ground.
Amendment 459 seeks to reduce the possibility of abuse by ensuring that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. That would allow the second independent doctor to approach the assessment with open eyes. Such a report would be particularly useful when it comes to the detection of coercion or pressure, as the first independent doctor might have spotted something that the second independent doctor might not easily see.
Let us consider the evidence of Dr Tim Howard, who has been deeply involved in end-of-life palliative care and assisted dying for many years. He has been a non-exec director of a health authority, a member of an ethics committee, a postgraduate teacher and, finally, chair of the General Medical Council fitness to practise tribunals, dealing with complex medico-legal principles and decisions in public. He also helped to set up the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which separated medical standard setting and investigation from adjudication.
Dr Howard says:
“I remain uncomfortable that when either doctor, the assessing doctor or the independent doctor, declines to agree with a request for”
assisted dying,
“they take no further action. I feel that the reasons for their refusal should, as well as being given to the patient, be recorded in the patient’s notes, and given to any ‘second opinion’ independent doctor. This is not an attempt to bias; it is a value judgement that criteria are not being met, and as such, is sharing an early warning to be extra careful.”
The Committee should note that he has, in his own words,
“been a strong proponent of medical assistance in dying…and a member of Dignity in Dying for many years.”
Danny Kruger
It does seem an extraordinary gap in the Bill, but I am afraid it is not unique to this Bill. In countries where assisted dying in some form is legal, there are remarkable failures to insist on the proper recording of applications that are declined or about which there are concerns. This speaks to the general cloud of unknowing that we are operating in. Does the hon. Lady agree that were we to pass the Bill, it would be great if, at least in this country, we kept proper records?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is exactly right. An assessment of whether somebody should qualify for assisted dying needs to be based on objective criteria. If those are not met, the only way that a second independent doctor should have a role is if either the circumstances have changed or, for whatever reason, the first doctor is unable to reach a conclusion. There must not be a situation in which the first doctor has made one decision and a second doctor arrives at a different decision, because that would imply a variability in the way the objective assessments are made. Not tightening this loophole would imply that we are prepared to allow such a variability across the medical profession, and I do not think we should allow that.
My final amendment in this group is amendment 460. I am concerned that the word “particular” in clause 10(3) negates the subsection’s purpose of ensuring that only one second opinion from the co-ordinating doctor can be sought, because a person could withdraw their first declaration, make a new one and start the process afresh; that declaration would then not be the “particular” first declaration. By removing “particular”, the loophole would be closed, and the safeguard would be made more effective. This concern was brought out well in Disability Labour’s written evidence:
“We are concerned that whilst 10(3) only allows for one second opinion to be sought, there appears to be nothing in the bill that stipulates a waiting period before a new application can be made. This risks applications being repeated until a supporting opinion can be obtained, thus negating the purpose of 10(3).”
I hope the Committee will accept my amendments.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her considered amendments. I would like to go through all the amendments in the group.
Amendment 348 is about the doctor communicating the outcome of the assessment, but I understand that that is already covered in clause 8(5)(b), which states that, having carried out the second assessment, the independent doctor will
“provide each of the coordinating doctor and the person who was assessed with a copy of the statement.”
I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary—it would be doubling up.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I just point out that the amendment states that the independent doctor would
“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor”,
and that is not covered by the paragraph the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. I hope that is helpful.
Dr Opher
I do not see what that would add to the Bill. The co-ordinating doctor would have a result and the patient would have had the report back. I do not feel the amendment is necessary—it would over-complicate the Bill—but we can see what the Government’s legal position is on that.
Amendment 303, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, suggests that the independent doctor should have to check that there has not already been a second opinion. We need to step back a bit and remember how the Bill will work. Basically, a doctor will refer to a co-ordinating doctor, who will make a full assessment of the patient. If, having carried out the first assessment, the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements in the Bill are met, they will refer the person for the independent assessment. That doctor will therefore need to see a report, because he is the co-ordinating doctor. He cannot then get a second opinion from a different doctor; that would not be part of the process under the Bill. I do not feel the amendment would make the Bill any safer.
Dr Opher
Actually no, I will not. I will go on, if that is okay.
Amendment 459 states that the second-opinion doctor “must produce a report” outlining their reasons for reaching a different opinion, but the whole nature of this is that the doctor is independent. As we have heard, if it is suggested that someone either is or is not allowed to get an assisted death, that might affect the assessment of the independent doctor. It would not be good medical practice to have that assessment in front of the independent doctor—that would lead to poor assessments. We need a right to a second opinion and we should have a truly independent doctor.
Amendment 460, which is the last in the group, would allow a patient only one declaration in any part of their lives, even if circumstances change. Although there will be vanishingly few instances where that would be relevant, I do not feel that such a provision would make the Bill any fairer or safer.
Amendment 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, would allow a second and a third opinion. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many of us, that we do not want doctor shopping. We want to allow one second opinion from an independent doctor, but not more than that.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
I rise to speak to a couple of the amendments. Amendment 348 is likely unnecessary. I would have been minded to support it had it referred to a registered GP, but the language of “usual or treating doctor” is unconvincing. I am not sure what those terms refer to. The registered GP absolutely should be informed, and both normal practice and the provisions in the Bill about entering information into medical records would mean that that is the case. For me, “usual doctor” is not the right terminology; it does not achieve what I think some of its proponents want. With reluctance, I will vote against that amendment because it does not refer to a registered general practitioner.
On amendments 303 and 458, I believe there must be provision for a second opinion. However, I am persuaded by the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about amendment 459. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: although the independence of the second opinion is important on matters such as the terminal prognosis, when it comes to the detection of coercion, the more information, the better. It is one thing to be independent in a medical assessment, but the amendment speaks to a psychosocial assessment. We are trying to detect coercion, so it is important that every decision maker gets further information as the process progresses.
The provision for five different touchpoints of assessment is one of the strengths of the Bill. Each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. It is not just five different independent points of information; because of the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process. I certainly think that the panel, or whatever we get to, should have sight of any negative assessment from an independent doctor, as well as any positive one. The panel will then be able to do its job of scrutinising the two decisions, potentially weighing them up, and calling the different doctors who have given different decisions. I am, then, persuaded by amendment 459.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
It came up in the debates last week that we heard some evidence from medical practitioners on how decisions and assessments were better made when done collaboratively. That means that we need to keep them independent but that, where possible, doctors should be working together in this process. Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment 459, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, may assist in that?
Lewis Atkinson
Yes, I do. I recognise the importance of independent assessment for prognosis and capacity. However, particularly with the issue of coercion, healthcare is a team sport, as anyone who has worked in healthcare knows. The more information and the more viewpoints we can get in those instances, the better. One of the strengths of the Bill is the team sense around it, which we will further in the amendments to clause 12 that we will come on to in due course.
I will finish briefly on amendment 460. I do not see the loophole that has been described. I think we would all want someone to be able to cancel their first declaration, and they are more likely to do so if they feel they have the option of going back and making a future first declaration. My worry with amendment 460 is that, by removing the word “particular”, it suggests that people are only able to make one first declaration in the course of their life. With the periods of reflection built into the Bill, which Members spoke about earlier, if someone changes their mind, they should cancel their first declaration. They are absolutely free to do so and the Bill, as currently drafted, makes good provision for that. To me, amendment 460 would remove the ability for that person to come back to that decision at a later point and go through the assessment process again. While I understand the motivations behind amendment 460, I am cautious about it for those reasons.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 348 seeks to add an additional requirement to clause 8(5). This would mean that, where the independent doctor is satisfied that the requirements under clause 8(2) have been met, they must
“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”
Some elements of amendment 348 duplicate requirements that already appear in the Bill, such as the requirement in clause 8(5)(b) for the doctor to inform the co-ordinating doctor of the outcome, including providing a copy of the statement.
The amendment would also overlap with the requirements in clause 16 for the co-ordinating doctor to make entries in the person’s medical record that must include the original statement or declaration. Where the co-ordinating doctor is not with the person’s GP practice, they must also give notice to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice of the outcome of the assessments.
Amendment 303 seeks to prevent a person from seeking multiple second assessments from different independent doctors. It places a requirement on the independent doctor to confirm
“that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”
This amendment creates the risk of a medical practitioner inadvertently committing an offence if there is no centralised record-keeping. It may also have the impact of preventing the person seeking assistance from obtaining a second opinion, as provided for in clause 10. Under the amendment, as drafted, it is unclear how this is intended to interact with the possibility of an independent doctor’s becoming unable or unwilling to continue to act as the independent doctor following the second assessment, when an alternative independent doctor may therefore be required.
On amendment 458, as the Bill stands, clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement confirming that they are satisfied that matters in clause 8(2)(a) to (e) are met, the co-ordinating doctor may refer the person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6), and is able and willing to carry out an assessment mentioning clause 8(2). The effect of the amendment is to restrict the circumstances in which the co-ordinating doctor can make a referral under clause 10(1) to a different registered medical practitioner to only when there has been a material change of circumstances. It is not clear from the amendment who is required to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances and/or how that will be proved. That may cause some uncertainty for the co-ordinating doctor.
I now turn to amendment 459. Clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria in clause 8(2)(a) to 8(2)(e) when conducting the second assessment, the co-ordinating doctor may, if requested to do so by the person who made the first declaration, refer that person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out an assessment of the kind mentioned in clause 8(2).
The effect of the amendment is that, where such a referral is made to the registered medical practitioner under clause 10(1), the co-ordinating doctor is required to provide them with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal. If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree. The two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under the Bill, and to the commissioner. This additional requirement for reports on the reasons for refusal or differences in opinion may make the process of seeking assistance longer and add to capacity demands on co-ordinating and independent doctors.
Turning to amendment 460, clause 10(3) provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement mentioned in clause 8(5), the co-ordinating doctor may make one referral for a second opinion. The effect of the amendment is to remove the word “particular” from clause 10(3), which says that only one second opinion may be sought
“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person.”
The amendment is unclear and could have several possible effects in practice. For example, it could have the effect of limiting the circumstances in which a referral can be made under clause 10(1) to the first time a person makes a first declaration.
I hope that these observations were helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the other amendments in the group; however, I listened carefully to the debate on amendment 459 and the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister. My view on that amendment has changed: I do think independence is really important in the doctor’s opinions during the normal process that the Bill sets out. However, it is a really fair point to make that if the independent doctor refuses the patient, there needs to be transparency about that, and it is important that everybody involved in the process can see how that decision has been made. That is a really valid point. It is a good example of how this Bill Committee is operating, and should be operating, in that we have been listening to different views and opinions.
I take on board the Minister’s point on capacity. We need to be aware of that. We will hopefully debate the third layer later today. That layer may be a panel of experts who are there to oversee the full picture of the patient journey. For them to see what has happened with the doctors that they have interacted with is very important. Therefore, I am minded to support amendment 459.
Danny Kruger
I want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. It is relevant to the whole debate about whether we are talking about a medical treatment at all. He made the point, in respect of the question of a second or subsequent referral to an independent doctor, that it is appropriate in medicine to have second opinions; he said that that is normal in medicine, and he is absolutely right. Indeed, there is nothing to stop a patient seeking a third, fourth or any number of opinions if they want to do that and can get a doctor to consider them. The fact is that what we are discussing here is not a medical diagnosis—that is not what is being asked for when someone goes to see the second doctor, or indeed the first. What they are asking for is permission to proceed with the process.
The Chair
I am satisfied that the items contained within the clause have been adequately debate. I do not therefore propose to permit a clause stand part debate.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Doctors’ assessments: further provision
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert
“, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”.
This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert
“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.
This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.
Amendment 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”
Amendment 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—
(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;
(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.
(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”
This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.
Kim Leadbeater
Amendment 201 provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant, which makes sense. Amendment 422 requires an assessing doctor to make such inquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. Amendment 423 requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.
The amendments seek to emphasise the importance of taking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the assessments by both doctors. The Bill as drafted provides that the assessing doctor must
“make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate”
when making the first and second assessments. With the amendments, I have sought to strengthen that language, by being much more explicit and making specific reference to consulting health and social care professionals. I have done so in response to the evidence we have received from professionals such as nurses and social workers, who often spend a significant amount of time with terminally ill adults.
It is clearly right that the assessing doctors should have access to all relevant details of a person’s medical records. If the records show that the person has recently been receiving health or social care, that may impact their application, so the doctors have to consult the providers of that care. As is the case at all stages in the process, records should be kept of any and all such discussions, and reports should be shared where appropriate.
Taken together, the amendments would ensure that the doctors’ assessments are thorough and comprehensive, and have taken into consideration the views and opinions of any wider health and social care team that may be working with a patient.
Danny Kruger
I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to speak to the amendment in her name, but I state clearly that I very much support it. In my view, it is very important that the doctor asks the simple question of the patient, “Why do you want an assisted death?” The question is not being asked at the moment.
I respect the points that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just made about amendment 201, and that the amendment may be intended to focus assessments on the information that is relevant. Nevertheless, it would introduce subjectivity into what is deemed relevant, and by narrowing the scope of the review of patient records, it could unintentionally allow for incomplete assessments, thereby undermining the safeguards that we all want to see. The risk is that potentially crucial medical history, including past mental health concerns, poor coercion indicators or undisclosed diagnoses, might be overlooked.
I call the Committee’s attention to the evidence from the British Geriatrics Society, which raised concerns that the definition of terminal illness in the Bill is often vague and risks misclassification, especially for older patients. Limiting the review of medical records could exacerbate that issue, as doctors may not have a full picture of the patient’s long-term prognosis and their mental health history. The General Medical Council has called for strong regulatory oversight to ensure that eligibility assessments are thorough.
Allowing doctors to determine which records are relevant, without standardised criteria for that judgment in the Bill, risks inconsistency and potential misdiagnosis. The criteria should include diagnosis and prognosis, treatment history, consultation, second opinions and mental health history. Consideration should also be given to disclosures of domestic violence and abuse, or patterns in medical records that might indicate domestic abuse without explicit disclosure, such as frequent visits for unexplained pain, chronic pain complaints, mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression, inconsistent explanations for injuries, and multiple visits to different healthcare providers. All of that should be properly considered by the assessing doctor.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the Netherlands, 1% to 2% of assessments annually—a significant number when we consider the volumes we are talking about—are deemed “not careful” under the law. Other countries do not have adequate ability to look into the data, but that is significant, and it is often due to inadequate consultation or documentation. I also draw attention to the fact that in our country, I am afraid to say, the cause of death listed by doctors is too frequently inaccurate. Analysis of postmortems suggests that one in 20 deaths have been wrongly recorded. Clearly, mistakes are made in medical records, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to require doctors to give complete consideration to the full medical history of the patient.
I recognise very much that we are trying to create a Bill that works in practice; nevertheless, I think we can emphasise streamlining and efficiency at the expense of patient safety, and we are doing that here. If we tell doctors that they are only required to sift through records that appear relevant to them—a quick skim of recent notes, a glance at the obvious items in a medical history—that may sound efficient, streamlined and practical, but it is likely to leave the vulnerable exposed, in particular when social workers and psychiatrists are not involved at this early stage, as they plainly should be. No multidisciplinary team is looking at the patient at this stage.
Lewis Atkinson
Does the hon. Member share my concern that the wording in medical records has no duration over a person’s lifetime? For example, consulting all the medical records of someone in their 70s or 80s at the end of their life would surely include the records from when they were a child—childhood vaccinations, the removal of tonsils and so on—and that would clearly be impractical. Does he not agree that amendment 201 would clarify that element?
Danny Kruger
What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.
Dr Opher
As the amendment states, it is about examining medical records for things that are relevant. If we are talking about coercion or capacity, these sorts of items will be relevant. I do not know if Members have ever seen medical records. Some people have extremely large medical records, and we have summaries for that, but if a part of that summary indicated something that we were suspicious of, we would look into it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has just said, the complexities of childhood tonsillitis do not really need to be examined in this case. We have to, and we always do, specify what we look into doctors.
Danny Kruger
As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”
We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.
Lewis Atkinson
The hon. Member is discussing amendment 201, but there is also amendment 422, which indicates that the professional should make inquiries of other healthcare professionals who have been involved in treatment recently. Does he not agree that that would mitigate against the sort of scenario he describes?
Danny Kruger
I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.
Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.
We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment
“if they consider that there is a need”.
I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.
There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.
There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.
Kim Leadbeater
On the hon. Member’s point about recording those consultations, amendment 423 states in its proposed new subsection (2B):
“Where an assessing doctor consults a professional…the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”So the consultation is recorded.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is very welcome. My concern is that there is no obligation to do anything about it. There is no obligation for the doctor to integrate the conclusions of the additional professionals that they have consulted into their treatment. I recognise that that provision is valuable and I welcome the amendments, but I suggest that they do not go far enough.
Let me use a hypothetical example to bring my point home to the Committee. Imagine a woman with terminal lung cancer asking to end her life. Her assessing doctor considers consulting a palliative care specialist for symptom control or a social worker to check on her home life, but decides, “My notes are enough. There’s no need for that.” What if the patient’s pain could be eased with a new approach that the doctor does not know about? What if her family’s pushing her to spare them the burden of her care goes unnoticed without a social worker’s input? The lady might die needlessly or be denied treatment unfairly.
The discretionary duty that the amendment would introduce essentially collapses because it does not force the broader scrutiny that patients deserve. The amendment sees the problem, but it is too feeble: it is too discretionary, too vague and too unenforceable for a choice as profound as assisted dying. While I will support it, I do not think it goes far enough.
Amendment 423 builds on amendment 422 by requiring that if the assessing doctor consults a specialist, a written record of that consultation must be shared, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley just mentioned. It is critical for transparency, consistency and accountability in decision making. In high-stakes cases, such as assisted dying requests, paper trails matter. Without a formal record, one assessing doctor might dismiss concerns raised by another professional without accountability—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it is remarkable how few jurisdictions around the world have such safeguards. The American model in Oregon, Washington and California does not track how many doctors a patient consults before finding one willing to approve an assisted dying request, so we do not know the extent of doctor shopping abroad. Canada’s system does not require refusals to be formally documented, making it difficult to assess the patterns of approval. Ensuring that records are available to both assessing doctors would add an extra layer of scrutiny and help to prevent doctor shopping.
However, while the amendment is a step in the right direction, it does not require an independent review of the records. Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, has criticised the lack of procedural rigour in oversight mechanisms, warning that assisted dying laws risk becoming a rubber-stamp exercise if refusals and approvals are not documented with transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has called for independent oversight of the entire process, not just a reliance on individual doctors. These amendments would partially address that, but would not fully resolve it.
Amendments 422 and 423 are welcome but otiose: they would simply give doctors permission to do what they should be doing anyway. If they are conscientious, they will do it anyway, and if not, they will not. It is slightly like an illegal gun amnesty: the good guys will not have illegal firearms in the first place, and the bad guys with guns are not going to hand them in voluntarily. I fear that we are requiring good behaviour of good people, and not requiring it of doctors who are not doing their job properly.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. Rebecca Paul has an amendment tabled in this group, so I shall call her next. I have had indications from Rachel Hopkins and Dr Opher that they wish to speak, and I see two others, of whom I shall make a note.
Rebecca Paul
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my amendment 468 to clause 9, which would ensure that the assessing doctor must
“ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”
We have heard a lot in this Committee about the importance of the patient-doctor relationship. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said that we should be
“trusting in the judgment of clinicians, who know their patients well”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2025; c. 634.]
He also said that patients
“may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 481.]
It is therefore worth asking how the Bill shapes the patient-doctor relationship.
The Bill asks doctors to do many things to and for patients. It asks doctors to consider whether to raise the subject of assisted suicide; personally, I wish we had agreed to the amendment that would have ensured that it was the patient who brought the subject up first, but we are where we are. The Bill asks doctors to explain the patient’s diagnosis and prognosis and to lay out options for treatment and palliative care, if there is any available; if there is not, the doctor can only state that point and move on. Nevertheless, we are asking the doctor to look into the matter and lay out possibilities.
The Bill asks doctors to check for capacity and for coercion, to ascertain whether the patient has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, to witness declarations and, eventually, to give the patient a substance and oversee the patient taking it. In other words, it makes doctors absolutely central to the process, as the facilitators of the process, as the people who accompany the patient and as the professionals with the biggest responsibility for ensuring that the safeguards are followed, yet it never asks doctors to make a simple but vital inquiry: why?
That is all that my amendment would add. It would simply require the assessing doctors to ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death. I hope that the Committee will agree that that would be a reasonable and not overly burdensome change. Some hon. Members have suggested that certain amendments embroider the Bill too much, but in this case, the patient-doctor conversation is already embroidered. The Bill makes some very specific demands of the doctor as to what the conversation should cover. Surely it is only natural, amid all the conversations, for the doctor to take a moment—perhaps more than a moment, but a moment at the very least—to help the patient to talk through their reasons. This is a very vulnerable moment in somebody’s life.
The simplest of questions can often unlock the most information. In some cases, for the small number who would benefit from the Bill, the answer would probably reassure the doctor, but for those others we worry about, the question would provide another important safeguard. It would be another opportunity to check that this really is in the best interests of the patient.
How would the conversation go? I do not think that we can generalise. It might be the briefest exchange or it might lead to a really searching discussion. Doctors know how to take their cue from the patients in these things. Crucially, the doctor’s role is not just to offer advice or information. Even if the doctor says nothing, it may make all the difference for the patient to be able to speak aloud their concerns, their confusion and their hopes and fears. I absolutely accept that many doctors, if not most doctors, would ask the question why anyway, but given its importance, I still urge the Committee to set that out in the Bill. In doing so, we would be affirming that this is more than a bureaucratic exercise; it is about a person and about getting to the truth of what they want and need.
I do not think we should not make the mistake of assuming that every doctor has the time, or will take the time, to have the in-depth conversations needed to really understand what is driving a patient’s request. It is up to us to make legislation that keeps standards high at all times. There is currently nothing in the Bill that will guarantee an in-depth conversation. I am afraid that not all doctors believe that that is even a likely outcome. In written evidence, the GP Edward Tulloch states:
“To conduct the required assessments outlined in 7.2 and 8.2 of the Bill within a standard GP appointment (lasting 10-15 minutes) is completely unrealistic. It will require multiple appointments to properly carry out such detailed discussions and complete the associated legal paperwork.”
We all know what pressure the NHS is currently under. Many of us cannot get a GP appointment. So, how certain are we that adequate time can be allocated to the assisted dying process to ensure the criteria are truly met?
By putting the “why” question on the face of the Bill, my amendment would bring us closer to the possibility of real, serious and honest conversations about a patient’s reason for seeking an assisted death. That would be especially helpful for those who have just received a terminal diagnosis. We have received some important written evidence from six palliative care doctors, who state that
“our experience is that many patients experience a period of adjustment to ‘bad news’ and may say that they cannot live under these conditions. However, after a period of reflection and adjustment, the majority come to find peace and value in their altered life circumstance, in a way they would not have believed possible.”
The consultant psychiatrist Jennifer Bryden provides an especially interesting perspective, as someone who has seen this from both sides:
“Having gone through several long episodes of illness, I now know that feeling entirely useless and a burden to everyone is a phase that will pass. For many people a terminal diagnosis will be their first time through the cycle and they will believe those thoughts represent reality. In coming to terms with a severe illness, depression is an expected phase and learning to accept all humans need each other takes time”.
Dr Bryden goes on to say that the current cooling-off period is not enough time for people to come to terms with such a diagnosis. Clearly, people may need all the help they can get to understand their new situation. Asking the patient for their reasons is only the beginning of that process, but one that may help them come to terms with their situation and validate, or not, their initial inclination.
Finally, asking why can identify those patients who are being coerced or pressured. Nobody should think that that is easy to spot. According to the charity SafeLives, which counters domestic abuse, it takes the average person who experiences violent abuse 2.3 years to access effective help. In the year before they finally get help, 85% of victims will have sought help of some kind from an average of five professionals. Often, sad to say, those who missed the signs will have been healthcare professionals. That is for physical abuse; psychological abuse will be far harder to spot. We cannot put in enough safeguards to ensure that doctors have all the tools they need and all the opportunities they can, to spot those signs.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
For clarity, at what point in the conversation does the hon. Member expect the question to be raised? In reference to an assessing doctor, do I take it that the question must be asked twice, at different times, by both the co-ordinating and the independent doctor?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Member for his very good questions. I suggest that it be asked twice, because it makes a lot of sense to ensure that the patient is given the chance to really explain what is driving their decision. It is the simplest of questions, but it is amazing what can sometimes come out of the simplest question.
I return to the safeguard against coercion. In a sense, this is not a new safeguard; rather, it confirms and bolsters the other safeguards in the Bill, which are there to explore the reasons for assisted dying. Asking why will help doctors to better understand what is driving a patient’s decision and to give that patient an opportunity to validate that they are truly eligible. It is the simplest of questions, driving the most significant conversation that a doctor and patient can have. I hope that hon. Members will support my amendment.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of amendments 201, 422 and 423, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and against amendment 468.
On amendment 201, a point was made earlier about the relevance of records. It was mentioned that it might well not be relevant to look at a childhood tonsillectomy. However, I wish to speak in slightly more specific terms, in support of women and their reproductive rights, and to highlight the risk of unconscious bias if all records are to be looked at.
If a woman had a termination in her teenage years, that will be highly irrelevant to her decision, many decades later, whether to choose an assisted death. Relevance is very important, because there will be a high level of record keeping in the process. It is not only the doctors working with the patient on the assessment who will read the records and reports; ultimately, it will also be the panel. I make the point again that so many parts of a patient’s medical records are highly irrelevant to the diagnosis and prognosis of a terminal illness, and to the six months under the eligibility criteria. Indeed, there is a risk of unconscious bias in the judgment. It is about the professionalism of the doctor in respect of understanding the records that are relevant for the process.
Rachel Hopkins
I will continue, if I may.
I turn to amendments 422 and 423. The importance of a rounded, holistic assessment and discussion with the patient has been pointed out in many of our discussions, as has the importance of the multidisciplinary team and the other health and care professionals who support the patient with health and social care. That would all have to be recorded—the conversations that have been had, and why the assessing doctors and other health and social care professionals were involved. In oral evidence, many doctors in other jurisdictions said that they worked in multidisciplinary teams. The amendment would firm that up. It is about being clearer, because the clarity that the amendments provide would make for a stronger process.
On amendment 468, the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out that it asks a very simple question. However, I return to the point about the professionalism of the doctors involved in the process, who will be working within the legal requirement under the Bill that the individual have a clear, settled and informed wish. The doctors will have to check individuals’ eligibility under the requirements, for example that they are over 18 and have a terminal illness with a six-month prognosis. The doctors will use their expertise and professionalism, and that of the multidisciplinary team, to make assessments about coercion. They have strong rules about assessing for capacity.
The requirement to ask why someone wants an assisted death is a requirement to police the conversation that the doctor has with their patient. Setting it out in primary legislation would lead to a tick-box exercise, with doctors saying, “You’ve told me a number of times already in our conversation that I’ve been having with you, but I’m sorry: I have to officially ask this question and tick the box.” That could lead to an insensitive conversation and relationship between the relevant people in the process.
To a certain degree, the patient may think, “So what? Do I have to tell you why? It is none of your business why I want to pursue this legal course of action down the line.” I appreciate where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but with the best of intentions, her amendment would actually lessen the individual’s autonomy and their right to choose what if the Bill passes will be a legal course of action. I am content that the stringent training that will be required for any of the assessing healthcare professionals will enable a good holistic conversation so that good judgments can be made. Adding this extra sentence would detract from that, so I cannot support the amendment.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I support amendments 422, 468 and 423, which I think would strengthen and safeguard the Bill. However, as someone who worked in mental health for many years, I have grave concerns about amendment 201, which would restrict access to medical records. Health professionals work in environments with great confidentiality of records; I have no concern about health professionals or doctors having access to health records. Some Committee members have talked about doctors not needing to know whether a person had tonsillitis, but most medical records or GP summaries will note whether someone has had tonsillitis, along with details about vaccinations and infections. I do not think that those records will necessarily be relevant or that a doctor would look in detail at what medication they have had in that respect.
What is relevant, however, are records for people who have a mental health disorder or are vulnerable. For example, people with serious mental illnesses such as chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia may be on treatments such as clozapine that, if stopped, will have an impact on their mental health. The treatment that they may undergo during terminal illness may have an interaction, and medication that they have been using for many years to treat their mental health condition may have to be stopped. Doctors need to know why the person wanted to choose that route, and whether it will have an impact on their mental health.
Restricting access to important medical records by the doctor who makes the decision will have an impact on very vulnerable people. As we have discussed before, people may be homeless or may not have any family members, and it will all have an impact on why they decide to seek the assisted dying route. People may feel that they are a burden to society and the system. If there is any documentation from six months or a year ago, it will be relevant for the doctor. Removing access to medical records for doctors will have an impact on people with mental disorders, intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions, so I oppose amendment 201, although I support the other amendments.
Naz Shah
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I first speak to amendment 468, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, on the asking of the question why someone wants to have an assisted death. When I originally came to this debate, Dermot, a humanist who was also my election agent—a lovely guy—came to me and said, “Now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will you support it”? I said, “Explain it to me.” He never once mentioned the word “autonomy”. If I remember correctly, what he talked about was suffering, pain and horrible deaths, which many hon. Members have referred to. We have heard lots of examples during this Bill Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said that the decision was none of a doctor’s business and that the issue was about autonomy. However, if a woman was being coerced into an assisted death, the idea that it was none of the doctor’s business would not quite wash with me. We talk about autonomy, but if someone does not have autonomy in their lives—if they are in an abusive relationship, are a victim of coercion or have a vulnerability—they might not have the choice.
When we ask a question, it is often about something else. I have experienced this myself. I am very passionate; when I am talking about things, somebody might just stop me and say, “Naz—what’s this actually about?” That is all it takes to make me stop, take a step back and a breather, and think for a deeper minute about whether the issue could actually be about something else. We do not always stop to think.
Dr Opher
The amendment is good practice; I do not in any way deny that. The hon. Member for Reigate is obviously coming from a really good place. However, the amendment is almost like specifying that when someone goes to see a doctor, the doctor has to say, “How can I help? What is wrong?” It is just unnecessary; that is my only feeling about it. If someone came in and said, “I would like to request an assisted death”, the doctor would not just say, “Okay”—they would ask how the patient was feeling. It is normal medical practice to ask what is going on in someone’s mind, so that does not need to be specified in the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a medical model and a social model of intervention. If I walk into a GP surgery with a really bad headache, I am prescribed paracetamol. If the headache gets worse, I am prescribed something stronger—maybe co-codamol or codeine. Doctors are really busy. We have had to add another 40,000 appointments just for people to get through systems, so we know how hard it is to get a GP appointment.
If the person who turns up at the GP’s with a headache is usually quite healthy, the doctor might not take a minute to ask about what has actually happened. If I say, “I have a headache because I am banging my head against the wall—I have that much stress”, that is a whole different conversation. Having that conversation with the patient—probing a little more—is, for me, very important from a holistic point of view.
Rachel Hopkins
I want to check that my hon. Friend was not implying that I had not thought deeply—for more than a minute–in the course of making my comments earlier.
Rachel Hopkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating those points. Does she accept that it is a patient’s right to say, “It’s none of your business” in the course of the conversation?
Naz Shah
I absolutely accept that it is the patient’s right to say, “It’s none of your business”, with the really clear caveat that they could well be a vulnerable patient. They might say that it was none of the doctor’s business, and that doctor might then not be able to explore the other things going on with that patient. That is why, for me, this does not wash.
The point that I am trying to make is that, in the course of a normal consultation, it is presumed that every doctor will know their patient and be able to have these conversations. In most cases, they probably will because we have amazing doctors; I have amazing relationships with my doctors. But does that mean that the doctors will ask that one question: “Why?” That is the crux of the whole Bill.
Rebecca Paul
The right to say, “It’s none of your business” might be fine when no one else is involved, but if someone seeks an assisted death, that involves multiple members of NHS staff. There is an impact on all those people, who need to be comfortable with what they are doing. Maybe the person needs to accept that they do need to provide some information so that the medical staff feel comfortable about the question of eligibility.
Naz Shah
That opens up a whole different debate for me. Some clinicians will not sign up to this process and some will. That is a whole different debate, but I take the point that there has to be a reason.
We talk about the option for referral to palliative care. I have previously moved amendments that would have meant a referral, without the option; however, when considering that option, a doctor needs to understand that if a patient says, “I do not have to explain myself—full stop”, or, “I do not want to talk about palliative care”, that should raise alarm bells. If a doctor says, “You’ve got this terminal illness. These are the options—let me spell them out for you. You have the option of referral to palliative care and the option of these drugs, so why do you want to kill yourself?”, and the patient turns around and says, “It’s none of your business”—
Naz Shah
Sorry, I will just finish my point.
From a common sense perspective—I am not medically qualified—that situation should make me, as a human being, want to understand more. As a human being, I would like to understand whether something else was going on, such as anger towards—
Rachel Hopkins
The Bill already sets out a number of things that a doctor has to assure themselves of, with regard to coercion and capacity. They would do that having had a significant amount of training to establish, in the round, after consulting others, that one way or another the legal requirements have been met. The “Why?” question appears to me to bring in a judgmental element—
Rachel Hopkins
Indeed: subjective, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That is the point that I am trying to get at. There is an objective assessment, which is wholly appropriate, but a subjective assessment would lead down a different route and muddy the objective assessment.
Naz Shah
I absolutely see where my hon. Friend is coming from and appreciate her concern, but we will have to agree to disagree as we have a difference of opinion. A subjective assessment might reveal that something else is going on for that patient.
I hate to put myself in this position, but imagine I have just received a diagnosis and I am going to die within six months. I could have a whole load of anger about that happening to me and I could say, “I don’t want this. I don’t want to talk about it. It’s none of your business. I’m angry—this is what I want.” At that point, does the doctor stop? In most cases, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire is absolutely right, but in some cases she might not be. I might want to shut the conversation down because I am angry or because other things are going on in my head and I do not want to explain. Amendment 468 would allow the doctor, from a compassionate point of view, to have another conversation with the patient.
Jake Richards
Does my hon. Friend agree that she is making a powerful case against amendment 468? A multitude of conversations and different circumstances will need to be taken into account; it is wholly inappropriate to have a mandated question in primary legislation. We should go back to clause 1, which I think the Bill is actually about. It states that the person must have
“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is at the heart of the Bill, rather than decisions about what is in the person’s best interests?
Naz Shah
I respectfully disagree. I am making the case that there is a conversation to be had. Yes, there is informed choice but is my hon. Friend suggesting that the question should not be asked at all? I take the point that with an informed choice there would have been an exploratory conversation, but sometimes just calling something out, or stating the obvious, makes a huge difference.
Rebecca Paul
I wish to clarify that the amendment is about not an additional assessment but merely a simple question. Like many who have spoken, I hope that most good doctors would ask the question anyway and take the answer. It may inform them or it may not but sometimes, as the hon. Member for Bradford West has just discussed so powerfully, it is helpful to remind medical staff, who are under lots of time pressure, that sometimes it is worth stepping back and asking why.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given way a number of times, but I gently suggest that we already know the crux of the Bill and what we are debating. The “why” is that people with a terminal diagnosis, with six months to live, would like a course of action to end their lives in a pain-free way and to have the autonomy to do so.
We are in danger of over-legislating for a range of different permutations that could potentially happen in conversations. I agree that these kinds of questions are absolutely crucial, but it may satisfy my hon. Friend that amendment 21, to which we agreed a few moments ago, requires medical practitioners to take training on
“domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse”.
That sort of protection and safeguard has already been agreed to.
We will rely on highly specialised individuals to pick up on these issues. They may want to explore, through further questioning, why people are making these decisions but we cannot legislate for all the different sorts of conversations, and all the emotions that may be going through people’s minds. If someone comes back and says, as my hon. Friend put it, “Well, it’s none of your business,” or whatever the answer may be, we will rely on the specialised professionals to pick up on danger signs. However, that would not necessarily lead them in every single conversation to have a suspicion of the patient’s motives. Life and conversation do not work like that and we cannot legislate in that way.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that life does not work like that. Life is very complicated and that is why I want the conversation to happen. My hon. Friend referred to amendment 21, which we have just agreed to. I spoke extensively about why that is a brilliant amendment that moves us towards much more safeguarding, but I also think that it does not go far enough for women, marginalised communities and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I genuinely do not feel that amendment 468 is about over-legislating. It is just stating an obvious fact: sometimes, even in normal life, we go around the houses to get to a conversation and get to the right point. That is what I want to get to.
Jack Abbott
To follow up on the example my hon. Friend gave earlier, if—to be glib—someone said, “None of your business”, she would want the doctor to keep probing. At what point does that end? If someone genuinely does not want to have that conversation and says, “I want to end my life because I have a terminal diagnosis. I live in fear of the pain that could await me and I don’t really want to go into much detail,” where does that end? Where does that conversation continue to?
Danny Kruger
I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The conversation goes on in the way the doctor would want it to, but they have at least asked the question. Is it not very simple? The Bill already requires doctors to look for signs of external coercion. As we have acknowledged, there is no way to determine internal coercion—the influence people have on themselves. There is no way in the Bill at the moment to identify whether somebody feels that they want an assisted death because they fear that they are a burden to others. This question is the only opportunity we have to tease out that answer: does she agree?
Naz Shah
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire makes an important point. Where are the opportunities? When doctors are doing the assessment.
The other issue that speaks to me is the question of internalised bias. We will have professionals with subconscious bias or affirmed bias. They will be clinicians who have chosen or agreed to take part in the process; fundamentally, the majority of clinicians will not take part in this process because of their beliefs. It changes the relationship between doctor and patient from a societal perspective.
I know that a number of times I have been stopped during a process and asked a different question, and at times that opportunity for reflection—even without the pressure of knowing I have only six months to live—is of benefit to me. I am sure that others would benefit from it, too, particularly because the decision is so momentous. For that reason, I will certainly support amendment 468.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for tabling amendment 201. I have mixed views on it. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said about medical records, especially when it comes to women and their past, but I also appreciated what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said about his experience from a mental health perspective.
I am still thinking about the amendment and I am not sure whether I will support it or not, but further thought needs to be given to the subject. There are the issues of mental health and women’s rights, but another issue applies, too. If someone has experienced trauma in childhood but that trauma has come out much more recently, even though it does not necessarily affect the decision at hand—whether to choose an assisted death—is there some kind of historical post-traumatic stress disorder that would then need to be explored? I do not have the answer, but I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on that point. I would value hearing whether she has thought about that and what her understanding of it is.
Stephen Kinnock
As I have mentioned before, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on some mutually agreed amendments, including amendments 201, 422 and 433. The amendments that the Government support aim to ensure the legal robustness and operability of the legislation, should it pass, and I will offer a technical explanation for them.
Amendment 201 will clarify the wording in clause 9 on the doctor’s assessment. It provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records applies only to records that appear relevant to the doctor. The effect of the amendment is to make clear as part of the assessment process that the assessing doctor is required only to review medical records that are considered by the doctor to be relevant to the person’s request to seek an assisted death.
Amendment 422 would add an additional requirement on an assessing doctor to make inquiries of professionals who are providing or who have recently provided health or social care to the person and make such other inquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. This applies to—
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, as well as on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 37
Repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure once more to be in this delightful room doing line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
The clause repeals in full the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The Act, which requires that decision makers treat Rwanda as a safe third country for the purposes of removing individuals there, and disapplies sections of the Human Rights Act 1998, was passed by the previous Government in an attempt to facilitate removals to Rwanda under the migration and economic development partnership. Despite that, the Act has served no practical purpose since it became law: no decisions were made that were affected by its provisions, and, as we have stated repeatedly, only four individuals were ever relocated voluntarily. No enforced removals to Rwanda ever took place under the partnership.
The Government have been clear from the outset that we will not proceed with the partnership. There is no evidence that it was successful in deterring small boat arrivals, nor has it delivered value for money for the British taxpayer. On the contrary, nearly 84,000 people arrived on small boats between 14 April 2022, which was the date the partnership was announced by the former Government, and 5 July 2024, which was the day after this Government were elected.
The Government have been clear that we will not make further payments to Rwanda, saving £100 million in upcoming annual economic transformation and integration fund payments, and a further £120 million that the UK would otherwise have been liable to pay once 300 individuals had been relocated to Rwanda. That is without even considering the additional staffing and operational costs, which would have been substantial. We will also exit the UK-Rwanda treaty as part of ending the partnership. It is therefore appropriate for the Government to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act so that the legislation, which relies on the provisions of the treaty, will no longer be on the statute book. That is what clause 37 achieves.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 37 repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. In doing so, the Government are removing the only deterrent, and indeed the only place where we can send people who have arrived from a safe third country. It is well established that it is extremely difficult to return people to some countries. In addition, the lack of documentation can frustrate the process of removal to someone’s home country. That is why a third country deterrent is needed: if people cannot be removed to their home country, they can and will be removed to a third country.
The logical consequence of repealing the Safety of Rwanda Act is that a greater number of migrants will arrive from countries that are harder to return them to. Without some form of agreement to send the migrants to a safe country, they will continue to come and to stay. Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains a list of safe countries, but the list is limited to countries that contribute very few illegal migrants, save for Albania. The last Conservative Government cut the number of Albanian illegal migrants coming to the UK by small boat crossings by over 90%, showing that our returns agreement with Albania worked. As the former director general of Border Force said:
“If we cannot send them back, we could send them to another safe country—ergo, Rwanda—where they could be resettled safely without adding to the continuing flow of arrivals by small boat from France.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 41, Q43.]
Channel boat crossings are up 28% since the election, with more than 1,300 people crossing in the week commencing 1 March 2025. This Labour Government have smashed farmers, small business owners and pensioners, but it seems that the people-smuggling gangs are the only ones who are safe. The only thing that will stop the gangs is a strong deterrent that means that people do not board small boats because they know that they will be deported if they reach the UK, and they will not be allowed to stay.
The additional offences and powers in this Bill are welcome as far as they go, but, with the scrapping of the Conservatives’ deterrent—that if someone has no right to be in this country, they will not be able to stay—this Bill is just window dressing. It will not, and cannot, stop people crossing the channel in small boats. The Government know that, because their own impact assessment shows that only a handful of people each year would be imprisoned because of the new offences created by this Bill.
Since the announcement that our deterrent would be scrapped, there are almost 8,500 more people in asylum hotels. That is the Government’s failure.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I was trying to count the number of times the hon. Member used the word “deterrent”, and I ran out of fingers. Could he please define what a deterrent is?
Matt Vickers
Does the hon. Gentleman want me to use my fingers to help him to count? The deterrent is preventing people from getting in those boats. If people know that they will be detained and removed when they arrive in this country, they will stop coming.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the crossings have risen from 299 in 2018 to more than 150,000 since then, the majority of them on the Conservatives’ watch? Does he also acknowledge that deportations have increased by 24% under this Government?
Matt Vickers
Does the hon. Gentleman know what has happened with global migration? If we compare the movements that have been made in the last week, those into Europe and those into this country seem to be slightly misaligned. The number of people arriving in this country is up 28%. The number of people put into hotels in communities across this country is up 29%; that is 8,500 more people. The number of people who have arrived in this country illegally and been removed is down significantly since this Government came to office.
It is clear that a new approach is needed. The National Crime Agency said that stopping channel migrants is not possible without a Rwanda-style scheme. It was a terrible mistake for Labour to cancel our deterrent before it had even started. The Labour Government like to point out the cost of the Rwanda plan, but a deterrent that stops illegal migrants from making the crossing and settling in the country will save the state billions in lifetime costs.
As Karl Williams from the Centre for Policy Studies pointed out,
“the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis last summer…estimates that a low-skilled migrant, or low-wage migrant as the OBR puts it, will represent a lifetime net fiscal cost to the taxpayer of around £600,000.”
Williams then pointed to
“analysis from Denmark, the Netherlands and other European countries that asylum seekers’ lifetime fiscal costs tend to be steeper than that” ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 43, Q49.]
The evidence therefore suggests that if 35,000 people cross the channel a year—that is roughly where we were last year—at that sort of cost range, the lifetime costs will probably be £50 billion or £60 billion.
Tom Hayes
I ask the hon. Member to desist from referring to that report. In oral evidence, I asked two experts whether they thought it was possible to make such assessments on the basis of the available evidence, and they declined. In fact, the author of that report said that the available evidence was fairly lacking in robustness and integrity. When I asked him whether he had considered certain key counterfactuals, he admitted that he had not. Later, in response to my question about whether it was appropriate for MPs to brandish such research, Professor Brian Bell said that it would be “foolhardy” to do so because the report itself made “very brave” assumptions.
Will the hon. Member now desist from using that report, given that we are in a democracy, we are striving for accountability and truth, and we should not be using fake information?
Matt Vickers
I will not desist from using those figures, but I would be happy to hear the hon. Member’s alternative figures when the time comes. I am sure this is not cost-neutral; I am sure it is very expensive.
As I was saying, that is why an effective removals and deterrent agreement is needed. I ask the Minister whether the Government are looking at a removals and deterrent agreement. If not, why are they repealing the UK’s only deterrent? How does she think we can control our borders without one, when it is clear that this Bill will not be effective in doing so? Does she agree with the National Crime Agency that a removals agreement is the only way to stop channel migrants, as happened with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia?
The Government say that they are clearing the backlog and returning people who arrived on small boats. That is just not the case. The most recent immigration figures show that the asylum backlog is higher than when Labour came into office, and returns of small boat arrivals were down again in the most recent quarter, with only 4% of arrivals being removed. In fact, of the total returns between October and December 2024, only 16% were enforced; in the three months before, only 13% were. Does the Minister think that allowing 96% of illegal immigrants who arrive by small boat to stay in the UK is a deterrent?
Tom Hayes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I promise that I will be briefer. Does the hon. Member agree that the overwhelming trend under the last Conservative Government in the balance between enforced and voluntary returns was in favour of voluntary returns? In fact, in 2023, only 24% of returns were enforced, in 2022, 25% were and in 2021, 27% were. Does he not agree that the trend over the last years has been one of voluntary returns?
Matt Vickers
I would say that the big issue around deterrence is how many of those who arrive in small boats are removed. Despite the fact that the number of those arriving illegally is up 28%, the number who are being returned is down significantly. That is the big question at play here.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his patience. Does he agree that he is moving the goalposts slightly to manufacture a political argument that, as he knows, would not be supported by the evidence available? Furthermore, will he look back into history at the record of the last Labour Government? I invite him to comment on their success—I know that he will want to jump at that. In 2004, 85% of people reaching our country were removed through enforced returns; in 2005, 73% were. Where there was a trend of enforced returns, it was actually under the last Labour Government.
Matt Vickers
In terms of the political arguments, what people out there want to see is the number of people arriving illegally in this country going down. They are not seeing that; it is up 28%. They want to see the number of hotels in communities across the country going down. It is not, although it was. The number of people arriving was also going down, but it is now up 28%, and there are 8,500 more people in hotels. That is the reality of the situation.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Of course, that is what Committee debates are meant to be about; it is easier to have a bit more to and fro in Committee than it often is on the Floor of the House, when we have two and a half minutes and we have had to rewrite our speech and discard most of what we were going to say.
Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the way in which the Illegal Migration Act interacted with the Safety of Rwanda Act meant that nobody could be processed at all; they were just stuck, and there was a build-up in hotels of small boat arrivals and other asylum claimants who could not be processed? That meant that there was a big backlog, and we have had to restart decision making. That inevitably means that there will be a slowdown in sending back people who have arrived by small boat until we can get on top of the backlog that the Conservative Government created.
Matt Vickers
The principle at stake is that if someone arrives in this country illegally, they will be removed. We were not processing people who had arrived illegally and were meant to be removed, but we were returning more of them before the election than we are now. However, I will get through my comments, and there will be plenty of time then for debate—we have a full morning ahead of us.
Does the Minister think that allowing 96% of illegal migrants who arrive by small boat to stay in the UK is a deterrent? At the moment, people know that if they come here on a small boat, they are 96% likely to be allowed to stay. That is a strong pull factor. The only way to remove that pull factor is to reinstate a strong deterrent. People need to know that if they arrive here on a small boat, they will not be able to stay. Can the Minister explain how she will increase the number of removals without a third country to which migrants can be sent? If it is not Rwanda, where will they go? Will it be Redcar? Will it be Romford? Will it be Richmond? Where will these people who cannot be removed to a safe country go?
As Alp Mehmet said,
“repealing the Rwanda Act will encourage illegal immigration… 240,000 people were declared to have entered”
the EU “illegally last year” and will likely end up coming to the UK. The Government have confirmed with this Bill and the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act that there is no deterrence, because once people arrive here, the likelihood is that they will be able to stay. Mehmet also echoed the comments from the National Crime Agency, saying,
“the only deterrent is to restrict arrivals, and to contain and remove quickly. That will send the right message.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 39-40, Q43.]
As he pointed out, there is not “anything in the Bill” that would suggest that people will be removed quickly. Why has a removals agreement not been included in the Bill? The EU is now looking at offshore processing and deportation centres. There is also a growing consensus in the EU that the 1951 refugee convention is not fit for purpose. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of these changes on the UK? Why have the Government scrapped the Rwanda plan, leaving the UK as an outlier? We wish to oppose the repeal of the Act by way of a Division.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to examine the failed Rwanda scheme. The Israeli scheme, which was set up more than a decade ago, provides stark evidence that the previous Government should have considered before recycling an idea that has cost taxpayers £700 million. In Israel, asylum seekers were given a stark choice: be sent home, go to a migrant detention facility or take $3,500 on a one-way flight to Rwanda. One such asylum seeker quickly found that he was not welcome on arrival. No sooner had he landed in Kigali than he was told he had to leave again for Uganda, and for a fee. He said that he quickly left for Greece on a small boat and then travelled over land to Switzerland, where he is now settled. Another used a $5,000 payment that he received to catch a flight to Amsterdam, where he then claimed asylum status.
The previous Conservative Government entered into the agreement with Rwanda with full knowledge of the previous failings there and offered individuals a personal payment of £3,000 to resettle their lives. Figures have been bandied about on how many asylum seekers Rwanda was willing to take, with the previous Government saying 1,000, and Rwanda saying between 100 and 200. It is not clear who was right, but a question that has often been repeated to me is: how can that be regarded as a deterrent? Indeed, our witnesses from the refugee support organisations made the point that people will continue to come and try their luck, and 84,000 took that risk. I welcome the fact that we have our common sense back and we are repealing the Act, but I despair at the waste of taxpayers’ money on pursuing a fantasy that had already failed elsewhere.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Good morning to you, Mr Stuart, for week two of our fascinating journey into the depths of the Bill. There will be absolutely no argument from me about this one, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill must go through. When we look back at the whole sorry Rwanda debacle, we will wonder how on earth such a crackpot scheme was not only conceived, but actually constructed and delivered. A few words will be forever on the gravestone of the last Conservative Government: “stop the boats” and “Rwanda”. It was the first time, in my experience, that an Act decreed a new reality. Through sheer willpower alone, the Conservatives declared that Rwanda was a safe place, and in true Orwellian style, they even called the legislation the Safety of Rwanda Act. It was the most blatant political attempt ever to try to convince us that black was white.
Rwanda is so safe that it is currently accused of supporting the M23 militia, which is claimed to be recruiting child soldiers and carrying out killings and rapes of civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Saying all that, Rwanda played an utter blinder. It milked this for all it was worth. It saw these mugs coming. So far, Rwanda has made £240 million—money that will not have to be paid back. The Bill was described by the Law Society as “defective” and “constitutionally improper”, and it was declared unlawful in the Supreme Court. All those rebukes did nothing for the Conservatives other than to encourage them to ensure that the idea became a reality.
We just have to look at the sheer waste and the sheer stupidity that was the very essence of the Rwanda policy. The headline was that it cost taxpayers £750 million and failed to deport a single asylum seeker against their will. There was £270 million to support economic development in Rwanda, £95 million for detention and reception centres and £280 million for other fixed costs. Fifty million pounds was spent preparing for flights that never took off.
Then there is the farce of the Kigali four—the four volunteers sent to Rwanda, who were the only people who actually made it through the whole scheme. Tortoise did us a favour by unearthing the script that was used when the Home Office tried to persuade people to take up a “generous one-time offer” of a relocation package to Rwanda. One source said that demonstrated an
“insane level of resource that went into just proving the concept”.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for his creative statement. The chaos in our asylum system and the dangerous rise in illegal small boat crossings is, of course, one of the greatest challenges facing our country, and for years the British public have been promised solutions. They were told that the previous Government’s Rwanda policy would fix the problem, but instead it proved a costly failure. It got stuck in legal battles, was riddled with operational flaws and was utterly ineffective. I will go into detail about that soon.
In 2018, 299 people crossed the channel on small boats. By 2022, the number had surged to 30,000—a hundredfold increase on the Conservatives’ watch. Despite their grand claims that the Rwanda scheme would act as a deterrent, more than 80,000 people crossed the channel after the scheme was announced, and not a single asylum seeker has been successfully removed under it—not one. It is clear that this policy failed.
Let us start with the legal reality. The Rwanda asylum scheme was not just controversial but unlawful. In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The reason for that was systematic defects in Rwanda’s asylum system: almost no claims from Afghans, Syrians or Yemenis were ever approved. The Court found a serious risk that genuine refugees could be sent back to danger, in direct breach of international law. Let us not forget that Rwanda has a track record here: a previous deal with Israel, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, led to refugees being secretly deported back to their home countries, in clear violation of human rights protections. This policy depends on breaking the law, and that is no policy at all. It is a legal and moral dead end.
That is why the Bill repeals the Rwanda scheme and replaces it with a system that upholds the rule of law. It will focus toughness where it belongs: not on desperate people, but on the criminal gangs who exploit them. Instead of wasting years in court, we will implement a legally sound system that actually works.
Further, the Rwanda scheme was not just unlawful; it was an economic disaster. As of mid-2024, at least £318 million had already been spent on this failing policy. What did taxpayers get in return? Nothing—no removals or deterrent effect, just an ever-growing backlog of cases and ever-rising hotel bills, which we have inherited. Even if the scheme had gone ahead, it would have been staggeringly expensive. The National Audit Office estimated that removing just a few hundred people could cost up to £2 million per person, yet we are expected to believe that this was a serious solution to the problem of tens of thousands arriving each year on the Conservatives’ watch.
This Government are putting an end to that waste. Instead of throwing money at a scheme that does not work, we are investing in practical measures. This approach is already delivering results: since taking office, the new Government have increased enforced removals by 24%. That shows that when we have a working system, we do not need gimmicks like the Rwanda plan; we just need competence.
This is not just about law or economics. It is also about how we treat people. A core British value is strength, but another is decency. Strength without decency is weakness, as the previous Government demonstrated. The Rwanda scheme was not just ineffective; it was cruel. It was based on the idea that people fleeing war and persecution should be someone else’s problem, no matter the risk to their safety.
Let us be clear that many of those crossing the channel are genuine refugees—they include people fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan, dictatorship in Iran and war in Syria—but the Rwanda policy, and, it would seem, the Conservatives, did not care. The policy made no distinction, lumped everyone together and treated them as a problem to be shipped off 4,000 miles away, out of sight and out of mind—although of course it did not work.
That is not the British way. This country has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need, and we do not abandon our humanitarian duties for the sake of a headline and a gimmick. Of course, those who should not be here will be deported, as we are already seeing, and those who genuinely need help will receive it under this Government. A true deterrent is taking out the smuggling gangs and deporting those who should not be here. The truth is that we do not stop the boats by shouting slogans; we stop the boats by giving people an alternative.
Finally—I thank hon. Members for their patience—the Rwanda plan was never operationally viable. Even if it had survived the legal challenges, the logistics were impossible. To make it work, the Government would have had to detain nearly every small boat arrival indefinitely—a task for which we simply do not have the detention space, the staff or the legal authority. Rwanda itself had agreed to take only a few hundred people a year, which is a drop in the ocean—excuse the pun—compared with the scale of the problem. Meanwhile the real criminals—the smuggling gangs—continued to operate freely. The Rwanda plan did nothing to target them. It was an illusion of control, rather than a real solution.
This Government take a serious, workable approach. That is how we secure the border: not through wishful thinking, but through real enforcement. The Conservatives have tried gimmicks. They tried grandstanding; they tried expensive, legally dubious, headline-chasing policies, and they failed. It is time to move forward. We will uphold the rule of law, protect those in genuine need and take real action against the criminals exploiting them.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
These are difficult problems and challenging questions. Practically every country in the western world is struggling with this and, with the notable exception of Australia, effectively none has solved it. The basic logic of the situation is that, if someone comes here illegally from a place to which it would be dangerous to return them, there are only four options.
First, they could be sent back to the country they came from. That is not legal in our current framework—even before getting to the morality of doing such a thing. Secondly, they could be put in immigration detention indefinitely. That is also not legal; a person can be held in immigration detention only if there is a realistic prospect of removal, which there would not be in this case. Thirdly, they could stay here indefinitely. That is not fair, and it is not what the public want. Finally, they could go somewhere else—a safe third country. Such an agreement was very difficult to broker; indeed, until the Rwandans agreed, many considered it to be impossible.
Clearly, the Government have little time for the Rwanda scheme and destroying it was one of the first things they did in office, but the basic logic problem remains. The last Conservative Government did not get everything right—that is for sure—but the Rwanda scheme was a genuine attempt to solve this truly hard problem, and it remains the only solution that we can see.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a fifth option? Just because someone does not have the right to be in the UK, it does not mean that they do not have the right to go to any other country in the world. The programme of voluntary returns, which massively went down under the Conservatives but has gone up massively under this Government, is part of the solution to that.
Katie Lam
But they do not. There will always be people who come to this country illegally from dangerous places. They are human beings responding to obvious incentives. Could the Minister please tell us which of the four options she thinks is the right one? Is it sending someone back to a dangerous country, which will entail a change in the law and probably leaving the European convention on human rights? Is it holding someone in immigration detention indefinitely, which has the same conditions? Is it allowing people to stay here, or is it sending them to a third country?
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear that the official Opposition want to keep the Safety of Rwanda Act on the statue books. I was disappointed for a number of reasons, which I will set out shortly, but I was not surprised. I have seen the way in which the Tories continue to position and conduct themselves on immigration policy. It is clear to me that they simply refuse to learn the lessons of the last 12 months. The public saw right through their Rwanda plan. They could see it for exactly what it was: a gimmick that was both unworkable and unaffordable.
Before today, I thought I would familiarise myself with the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. At the time, a good number of Committee members, including me, had yet to be elected, but reading the debates really brings home the sense of chaos that had engulfed the Conservative party at the time. The then shadow Home Secretary, now Home Secretary, summed it up:
“What a farce…We have a Prime Minister with no grip, while the British taxpayer is continually forced to pay the price. Former Tory Cabinet Ministers and deputy chairs from all sides have been queueing up to tell us it is a bad Bill. They say it will not work, it will not protect our borders, it will not comply with international law and it is fatally flawed.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 966.]
A previous Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), stated that
“to arrogate to oneself the right to declare one’s own compliance with international law runs the risk of, first, other states finding comfort in our example and, secondly, undermining our own messages in other situations. That makes this not just bad law, but bad foreign policy.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 855.]
This is an example of utter chaos. The Law Society, in welcoming the repeal of the Rwanda Act, said in its evidence to this Committee that the Act
“set a dangerous legal and constitutional precedent by legislating to overturn an evidence-based finding of fact by UK courts that Rwanda is an unsafe country to send asylum seekers to.”
However, the measure made it on to the statute book. The Rwanda plan ran for two years and, as we know and have heard several times this morning, a grand total of four volunteers were sent to Rwanda at the not insubstantial cost of £700 million to the UK taxpayer—quite a remarkable feat.
While hundreds of millions of taxpayer pounds were sent to Rwanda, the legislation’s effect was felt in the UK. As a result of the fantastical Rwanda plan, huge backlogs of asylum claims were building, with tens of thousands of people in hotels unable to leave because of the design of the Illegal Migration Act. We know that the use of hotels does not represent value for money and we are moving away from it. When it comes to the idea of the Rwanda policy being a deterrent, from its inception to the announcement it was to be scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. It is always difficult to measure a deterrent’s effectiveness, but that is a pretty clear indicator that a deterrent it was not.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Stuart. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire that he considered the Rwanda scheme a crackpot scheme. Another opinion is that it was “un-Conservative and un-British”—the opinion of John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister. We have to acknowledge that the basic principle of this Bill is to address the failures of past legislation. Indeed, the Minister explained during an earlier debate that it is not possible to make the suite of legislation involved in the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act work together coherently. Not to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act would undermine confidence in the credibility of the Bill. We are moving away from reliance on expensive gimmicks, hotel use, the flaw that is the Rwanda Act, with its price tag of £700 million of taxpayers’ money, and failure to effectively process the people arriving on our shores. Do we really believe that clinging to a piece of dead legislation is the way to protect our borders and put the safety of our country in focus and at the front?
Tom Hayes
May I start by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart? I am particularly enjoying the opportunity to have these debates in a free-flowing way—while sticking to parliamentary etiquette, obviously.
I commend the hon. Member for Stockton West, with whom I have some sympathy. He has been sent here to defend the impossible. I half wondered, when he came in wearing that fetching yellow tie, which I slightly covet, whether he had come to hold his hands in the air, make an apology and perhaps stand on the side of classical liberalism, but no: he stood true to the 2024 manifesto on which he was elected. I hope that in addressing how he would define a deterrent, I will add something new. When I asked him for a definition, he said that a deterrent would prevent people from coming and that it would do so by detaining and removing them. I shall make a case that challenges his assumptions on that basis.
A deterrent is a strategy aimed at preventing external actors, targets and adversaries in the military sense from taking unwanted actions. For the Rwanda asylum policy to be a deterrent, the Conservative Government would have needed to achieve certain things: to maintain the capabilities required to deter and be highly resolved to deploy them—as the hon. Member said, to be able to detain and remove—and to effectively communicate their resolve to act. In any communication, one needs to be understood to be highly resolved and capable of following through.
For the Rwanda asylum policy to be a deterrent, the Government would have needed to persuade potential migrants of their capabilities and resolve to send them to Rwanda to process their claims after they had illegally entered the country, and to have stopped migrants from paying significant sums of money to smuggler gangs facilitating illegal migration. In short, from what the hon. Member said, it feels as though the principal target of deterrents was migrants. The Rwanda asylum policy was always doomed to fail on those key conditions, because it was not able to achieve detention or removal.
On detention, Professor Brian Bell, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, told us that the numbers given by the Government
“are certainly not consistent with a story of a very significant deterrent effect from the Rwanda Act.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 56, Q84.]
Dr Peter Walsh of the Migration Observatory cited concerns about
“where people would be detained”,––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 14, Q13.]
as the UK immigration detention system had capacity for only 2,200 people, with roughly 400 spaces free. Moreover, he said that Rwanda would struggle to process more than “a few hundred” asylum claims a year.
That takes me to the question of removal.
Dame Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend realise that the detention estate was used by the Conservative party to empty some prison places and try to relieve pressure there? I think it highly unlikely that there would be even 400 spaces.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that important reminder that when the Labour Government took office after our historic win, we inherited an awful mess in our prison system, which was described by independent experts and organisations as near to collapse—so near that there were just a few hundred spaces left at a time when the country was rioting.
Chris Murray
Is my hon. Friend also aware that under the previous Government, the Home Office tried to secure additional detention estate for asylum seekers but catastrophically failed to do so? For example, at Northeye, they spent hundreds of millions of pounds to secure the site—far more than the previous owners had paid—yet found that it had contaminated ground and could not be used, and the Bibby Stockholm in Dover closed very swiftly after opening.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for those important points. In fact, the Bibby Stockholm was moored just off a place near my constituency in Dorset. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for campaigning so quickly and efficiently to have the Bibby Stockholm closed, and I thank the Government for responding so constructively to that request. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh about how we have seen significant challenges to the state’s ability to detain. As a consequence, in one of the two conditions set out by the hon. Member for Stockton West for an effective deterrent, it is clear that the Conservative Government failed.
For the next component of an effective deterrent—removal—we need only look at the ultimate proof: who went to Rwanda? What deportations actually happened? I can anticipate some of the ways that the Conservatives may challenge that, so I would like to take them on. First, they may blame this Labour Government for cancelling the policy, without also saying that the Conservative party controlled the timing of a general election that they seemed certain to lose. That they believed they were certain to lose is perhaps why they called the election before they could begin deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda. In fact, the first flight was set to take off on 24 July. If the Conservatives had delayed the Dissolution of Parliament by just 20 days, to 19 June rather than 30 May, the first planes could have taken off.
The last Prime Minister could have waited out those 20 days, if he did not have anything else to do. With a zombie Government that were not showing any ambition, if he had wanted to show ambition, he could have spent a nice 20 days watching all 90 hours of the TV show “Lost”. If he wanted to go at a more leisurely pace—and the Conservatives were excelling at going at a leisurely pace—rather than binge watching something, he could have watched all 30 hours of the TV show “Stranger Things”. Instead—and this is where the “ba-dum” comes in—the Government manifested signs of being lost, and the last Conservative Cabinet just comprised stranger things.
Tom Hayes
I thought I would to and find a moment of humour in the dispiriting debate on this topic.
The Conservatives may progress to blaming successful legal and judicial challenges to the policy. The Rwanda policy was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said, unlawful and deemed to be so by the courts. If they do, His Majesty’s Opposition should confirm whether they respect the independence of our judiciary in adjudicating such challenges on the one hand, and respect the international human rights laws, under which challenges were made and were successful, on the other. That is important, because one of the hallmarks of the new Government is to be lawful and to respect our judiciary. We need to embrace that change. The Opposition could also reflect on the probability of further legal challenges being undertaken because of the human rights concerns about Rwanda, which my hon. Friend highlighted so effectively.
Last, the Conservatives may want to blame political challenges for undermining the credibility of their Rwanda asylum policy. In a democracy, it is of course right that Members of Parliament raise concerns on behalf of their constituents—indeed, that is what we have been doing—but the Conservatives overcame those political constraints by passing the Safety of Rwanda Act to address judicial concerns, and they signed a legally binding agreement with Rwanda. So the idea that the deterrent was not able to function because of legal or political challenges is actually farcical, because the previous Government held the cards in their hands.
I have heard it said that the Conservatives could have followed the Australian asylum policy, which has been described as a successful model—perhaps it even inspired the Rwanda asylum policy—but there is good reason to believe that UK could not have achieved the deterrent effects of the Australian offshore asylum processing model. Indeed, Professor Brian Bill, chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, said in oral evidence that it was inappropriate to draw comparisons between the Rwanda scheme and the Australian policies.
Were we to be generous and accept the view of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent that the Australian policy stood out in the world as being successful, there would be challenges to assessing the efficacy of that policy. As the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, an expert and independent institution, has said, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Australian offshoring policy was the reason for a drop in numbers of people going to Australia. Put bluntly, if migrants were paying attention to the last Government’s policy, they had no reason to believe that they would be barred from staying in the UK.
That takes me to my third and final definition of what would make an effective deterrent. Yes, the state must be understood to be highly resolved to deter, detain and remove, and capable of doing so, but it takes two to tango. Britain can only be understood if asylum seekers are able to understand, which in turn depends on several key factors. It means migrants being able to do at least three things: to pay close attention to the last Government’s actions—I struggled to do that, so I cannot see how asylum seekers would—to stay fully informed about the many twists and turns in the Safety of Rwanda Act asylum policy, which again I struggled to stay abreast of, and to behave as rational actors who weigh up the costs and benefits of action.
We have heard in testimony and oral evidence that migrants are typically unaware of Government policy and actions, because they are too busy being asylum seekers and migrants. Moreover, it can be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the chaotic and difficult circumstances that they are forced to inhabit prevent them from being the rational actors that they would otherwise be, calmly and objectively assessing the trade-offs between the perceived costs of illegal entry, the probability of those being incurred, and whether those are outweighed by the potential benefits of migration.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I rise to put on the record my support for the Government’s decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act. It is important to remember that this Act was passed by a Conservative Government who knew that they were on their way out—a Government who had run out of road and run out of ideas. The Safety of Rwanda Act was nothing more than a gimmick, as has been pointed out many times this morning. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and only reaffirmed the widely held view that the Conservative Government had lost control of our borders.
The Bill brought forward by the Labour Government aims to tackle an extremely challenging issue—one made far more challenging by the incompetence shown by the previous incumbents. It marks a welcome shift from wasting taxpayers’ money on projects such as the Rwanda scheme to a plan that genuinely aims to smash criminal gangs and stop small boat crossings at the source, with a consistent approach of respecting the vulnerability of the human lives involved. That is why we must reject Conservative attempts to continue their failed schemes.
For those now in Opposition, one would have thought the lessons of July last year were to look outwards, consider what went wrong and reassess their positions on key matters such as immigration, but clearly, they are carrying on as they have done for years, insistent on making the same mistakes that cost the public purse millions that could have been spent on supporting the working people of the United Kingdom. I reiterate my support for the repeal of the Rwanda scheme and look forward to supporting this Government’s plans for restoring control to our borders and delivering on the priorities of the British people.
Chris Murray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, especially after we have had such an interesting debate with some very thoughtful contributions. I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East mentioned that I keep quoting Peter Walsh, and I am going to again, because the point he made in the evidence sessions was one of the most critical points on immigration policy in Britain overall. He said that demand for Channel crossings is “fairly inelastic”. The demand will not wax and wane hugely in response to Government policy, which tells us that deterrence will have only limited use. That is the conceptual flaw at the heart of the Rwanda plan. It put all the country’s cards and money on a deterrence-only approach. Deterrence has to be real and believable, which the scheme clearly was not.
I listen closely to what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire says about the role of deterrence in migration policy. The exchanges we are having are helping to clarify the thinking. It is clear from the Bill that deterrence can only ever be a component. We must focus on the supply—the ability for people to cross the Channel—and not just the demand. That requires the measures in the Bill, but also diplomatic work and upstream work.
The repeal of the Rwanda legislation was inevitable and written in the stars from the very beginning of that hare-brained scheme. Before it passed, the European Council on Foreign Relations said that the scheme was doomed to failure and a “floundering disaster”, because it was unlikely to deter illicit migration, it would damage the UK’s standing in international law, it would endanger refugee lives and it would come at huge financial cost. Every single one of those predictions came to pass, so it is no surprise that we are having to deal with this today. I would also say that it presaged the Conservatives going down in an historic election defeat, so it was clearly a failure politically for them as well.
On the point about removal to third countries, before we left the European Union, the UK had the capacity to remove people to safe countries in the EU that they had travelled through. The Conservatives manifestly failed to avail the country of that power we had, and then failed with the Rwanda system. Clearly, the Conservative track record on third countries is very poor. There is a component in the immigration system for people going to third countries when they have no right to stay here, which is something we need to look at further ahead.
The hon. Member for Stockton West made reference to the Albania relationship and returns increasing to Albania, as if that somehow proves that the Rwanda scheme would have worked if we had just let it take its course, but it is a completely spurious parallel. The returns to Albania happened before the communiqué was signed with Albania, so the two are not related—perhaps he was arguing that the prior readmission agreement was the variable that led to the increase, but it came after the spike, so it cannot be held responsible. The Albania agreement was not just about illegal immigrants; it also included a huge number of foreign national offenders—a different group of people entirely. It was also about people from Albania returning to Albania, not third-country nationals. The idea that the Albania scheme is somehow an alibi for Rwanda can be completely rejected.
That is not actually the point, however, because the Rwanda scheme would never have worked at the scale required, even if it had been able to work at all. The Minister was correct when she talked in her initial remarks about the interaction between the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda Act. That meant that nobody was getting processed, so the country ended up with a perma-backlog of asylum seekers with nowhere to go; they could not return to the country they came from through a voluntary returns agreement or be recognised as refugees. The Rwanda scheme would never have worked at a meaningful scale, and it would never have been able to deal with the backlog. We were on track to having to take over half the hotels in the country to accommodate asylum seekers.
We can have a debate about how best to manage an asylum system—voluntary returns, swift processing, meaningful decisions and removals are clearly components of that—but we can surely say in debating this clause that the Rwanda Act was not the solution. Some £240 million of our constituents’ money was wasted on the scheme, which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire was quite correct to call “crackpot”. Passing legislation to assert that reality is not what it is will never be an effective way to govern anything, never mind the asylum system, so I am pleased that the Act will finally be off the statute book.
Dame Angela Eagle
We have had an interesting debate about taking the Safety of Rwanda Act off the statute book, as clause 37 does. I am distressed that the Conservative party continues to assert without evidence—in fact, contrary to most evidence—that that Act and the Illegal Migration Act were about to work. Apparently, those Acts were on the cusp of being a great success when the evil new Government came along and cancelled them.
I speculate that many Conservative Members are secretly pleased that they can assert that, because it gets them out of an embarrassing, expensive farrago; the Safety of Rwanda Act will go down in this country’s history as one of the most catastrophic pieces of legislation that Parliament has ever dealt with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham rightly pointed out, it was not ordinary or normal for Conservative ex-Prime Minister John Major to pronounce the Act to be “un-Conservative”. The Act is many things, unconservative being one of them.
Government Members, and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, assert that the Act was not a deterrent. This is the current discourse: we are saying that it was not a deterrent and that we can prove it, and the Conservative party, which was responsible for the Act, is left asserting that it was a deterrent, despite there being absolutely no evidence for that despite all the years since the policy was announced and all the years the Act was on the statute book.
That reminds me of discussions I used to have as a student—a very long time ago—about whether communism in its pure sense had actually ever existed. It was obviously a failure, but when one came across the ideologues, they simply asserted that the communism that had been tried to date just was not pure enough, and it was therefore still likely to succeed if ever it was tried properly. Does that sound similar to the discussions we are having about this iteration of fantasy asylum policy as gimmick? I think it does.
Matt Vickers
I have asked this question a few times and never quite got to the bottom of it. We were sending people to Rwanda who could not be returned to their home country because it was not safe. Where will those people go now, if not Rwanda? Does the Minister fear that, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, the Government might end up coming back to this issue in a few years when they realise that things are continuing to go the wrong way?
Dame Angela Eagle
First things first: the hon. Gentleman was not going to send to Rwanda only those whom we could not return to their own country; in theory, he was going to deport to Rwanda absolutely everybody who arrived to claim asylum after March 2023—that was what we were told. In reality, those people all ended up in hotels, unable to be processed and growing in number, while the Conservative party indulged in its expensive gimmicks and fantasies of how the world should be.
As many Committee members have pointed out, the day job was not being done while that parallel universe policy was being developed. It took all the attention away from running what is a complex enough system as it is. Many resources were diverted to try to create that new reality, resulting in the neglect of the system, and huge backlogs were built into the system because of how the Illegal Migration Act interacted with the Safety of Rwanda Act. That made it impossible to run the current system or to move to a new system that was remotely workable, thereby landing this country with a huge, dysfunctional series of backlogs, and a system that we have had to literally start up again from scratch to try to get working coherently.
Pete Wishart
The Minister may have been coming on to the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West, but will she be brave enough to tell the Committee that this Labour Government will never consider sending asylum seekers and refugees to a third country?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Home Secretary has said that she does not rule out third country processing; that is not the same as the Rwanda scheme, which was deportation to a third country permanently. I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about third country returns, such as reviving the Dublin system. When the previous Government negotiated the EU withdrawal agreement, they perhaps should have included something about returns to Europe. Had they done so, perhaps we would be in a different situation, but those would also have been third country returns. He asked a wide-ranging question, and I have been as honest as I can in answering it at this point.
We could spend all day, and probably many more days, talking about the failure encompassed in the interaction of the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. Our job today, though, is to tidy it up. Clause 37 will take the Safety of Rwanda Act off the statute book and put it in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson is not here to move amendment 9, so we move to clause 38 stand part.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Repeal of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—
“The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is repealed.”
This new clause would repeal the Illegal Migration Act in full. In combination with Amendment 8 to leave out clause 38, it would replace the selective repeal in the Bill with a full repeal.
Dame Angela Eagle
As always, the Lib Dems are keeping us on our toes. I hope there is a benign reason why they are not in attendance today—perhaps my horrible cold made its way over to them and they are not well.
Clause 38 repeals the vast majority—not all—of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We decided not to take a blanket approach to repealing it all, and we will have that debate when the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire speaks to new clause 2. He has given us the choice whether to repeal the Illegal Migration Act as a whole. Our view, which I will explain in response to his speech, is that there are a few useful clauses in the Act that we have decided to keep on the statute book.
In general, we all know that the Illegal Migration Act was a flawed piece of legislation that made it impossible for us to process and run asylum claims. It was on the statute book in the context of the Safety of Rwanda Act, which assumed that anyone who arrived after March 2023 would not be allowed to become part of an asylum claim in this country. It contained the so-called duty to remove, which placed a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to remove everyone who came to this country after that time. It was flawed in many ways, but it made it impossible for us to run asylum claims in this country lawfully. Therefore, it is important that the vast majority of this flawed legislation should be removed from the statute book, and that is what clause 38 does.
I will set out in detail why we have decided to keep six clauses of the Act. I will try to explain to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and the rest of the Committee our thinking behind each case, but I will do so when the new clause has been spoken to.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 38 repeals sections 1 to 6 and schedule 1, sections 7 to 11, sections 13 to 15 and schedule 2, sections 16 to 28, sections 30 to 5, sections 53 to 58, section 61 and section 66 of the Illegal Migration Act.
Section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act placed a duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons to their home country or a safe third country who have entered or arrived in the UK illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the IMA makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger, which is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention. However, people who come here directly from France, a safe country where no one is being persecuted and which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system, should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister why the Government are repealing this duty. Is it because they do not think they are able to remove those who have arrived illegally? Is it because the Government think people who arrive in this country illegally should be allowed to remain?
Section 5 of the Illegal Migration Act provides that asylum claims are automatically deemed inadmissible for those who have arrived illegally. One of Labour’s first actions in government was to allow illegal migrants to claim asylum. Can the Minister explain how allowing illegal migrants to claim asylum is providing any deterrent? Surely it will help the smuggling gangs, by providing a stronger incentive for people to make those dangerous crossings of the Channel in small boats.
Matt Vickers
There is a lot to do in the way of commencement; the Bill is there and could be commenced at any time, if the Government felt it was of help. In fact, in a few years’ time, when they come back to the drawing board to try to find a deterrent, they might well want to do that.
Sections 31 and 32 of the Illegal Migration Act prevented people who have entered the country illegally from obtaining British citizenship. The Labour Government are repealing this provision. Their position is hardly surprising when the Prime Minister does not think that British citizenship is a pull factor, but that does not mean it is the right thing to do. Why are the Government repealing this clause, allowing illegal migrants to get British citizenship?
Do the Government not believe that British citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, especially for those who have entered the country illegally? If so, why have the Government not included measures to stop illegal migrants obtaining British citizenship, and instead only issued guidance stating that
“applications made after 10 February 2025 that include illegal entry will ‘normally’ be refused citizenship, regardless of when the illegal entry occurred.”?
Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations about the effect of a decision by a relevant person (“P”) not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment…where there are no reasonable grounds for P’s decision.”
This means that, if a migrant refused to undergo an age assessment, they would be considered an adult. Labour have removed age assessments for illegal migrants who claim to be under 18, resulting in the risk that grown men may end up in schools with teenage girls. In fact, the most recent data on age disputes shows that more than 50% of migrants claiming to be under 18 were actually adults. How do the Government therefore intend to ensure that migrants claiming to be under 18 actually undergo age assessments, and why is that not included in the Bill?
The SNP’s new clause 2 would repeal the Illegal Migration Act entirely, so the SNP must be agreeing with the Labour Government that illegal migrants should be able to get British citizenship and should not have to undergo age assessments. Therefore, I ask the same questions: does the SNP not believe that British citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, especially for those who have entered the country illegally? How would the SNP ensure that migrants claiming to be under 18 actually undergo age assessments, and why is that not included in new clause 2?
By repealing the Illegal Migration Act in its entirety, the SNP want to stop the seizure of mobile phones from illegal migrants, something that helps to establish identities and obtain evidence of immigration offences. As Tony Smith said:
“Passport data, identity data, age data and travel history data are often held on those phones—all data that would be useful when considering an asylum application.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 40, Q43.]
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 9 would have repealed section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in bad faith. Do the Liberal Democrats think that people using modern slavery protections fraudulently should be allowed to stay in the UK? If so, do they believe that people who make fraudulent immigration claims should be allowed to stay in the UK? We believe that the effect of repealing the majority of the IMA and the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda Act will be an increase in the number of people arriving in this country illegally and remaining.
I have therefore asked the Government whether they would be prepared to be transparent about the numbers. If they are convinced that the approach set out in the Bill will be successful, let us measure it. Will the Minister commit to publishing all the numbers, and the nationalities, of all those who might have been excluded from the UK asylum system on grounds of connection with a safe third country or a late claim, but have not been—with reasons why not—and to setting out the obstacles to returning them to their country of origin and what steps are being taken through international agreements to overcome that, as recommended by Tony Smith in evidence to this Committee? We will oppose the inclusion of this clause in the Bill by way of a Division.
Pete Wishart
I must say to the hon. Member for Stockton West that he really does not want to know my views on British citizenship, because they are likely to blow his head—but we will leave that one at that.
It is disappointing to note the absence of our Liberal colleagues. Back in the day—the good old days, Mr Stuart —when we had an effective, efficient, diligent and conscientious third party, there would always be someone present to ensure that the views of the third party were represented. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have good excuses, but I hope they start to take a bit of interest in this important Bill, because it has been disappointing thus far.
I say to the Minister, “‘Useful clauses?’ Come on!” We are talking about sections 29, 12, 59, 60 and 62, some of the nastiest and most pernicious parts and aspects of the Illegal Migration Act. I cannot believe that this Government want to continue that horrible and heinous Tory set of proposals and clauses in this Bill. This was their great opportunity to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s hopeless and useless crackpot Rwanda scheme and their heinous and horrible Illegal Migration Act.
I will give the Minister a few quotes from some of her colleagues, some of which I wish I had come up with myself. The now Prime Minister said at the time that the Illegal Migration Bill would drive “a coach and horses” through protections for women trafficked to the UK as victims of modern slavery. The now Home Secretary said that that IMA does the “total opposite” of providing support for those who have been trafficked, and that it was nothing other than “a traffickers’ charter”. There are other prize quotes from the Home Secretary and various Ministers within the Home Office—absolutely and totally correct, right and true—about the horrible Illegal Migration Act. Now we have a Labour Government inconceivably standing by large swathes of an Act that they so rightly and widely rubbished and wanted rid of only a short while ago.
It would be different if the Government were maintaining some benign, useful or helpful parts of that Tory Act, but they are maintaining some real, pernicious nasties. Provisions that were damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under the Tories are just as damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under this new Labour Government. I remind the Minister what the then Home Secretary said on that Bill when introducing it:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
The previous Government could not care less about our obligations under international law or about human rights, and they were quite happy to set them aside. Now we have a Home Secretary who stands by certain provisions of that Act, with all its difficulties concerning its relationship with convention rights.
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman will have noted on the front of the Bill that we are debating the statement from the Home Secretary on the European convention on human rights:
“In my view the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
Pete Wishart
I am glad that the Home Secretary stated that, as she always does when it comes to our relationship with, and compatibility with, human rights. I want to raise a couple of issues and ask a couple of questions about just how very loosely this Bill is connected with the Government’s obligations and about some of our real concerns on human rights. I will come to that in the course of what I hope will be a short contribution.
It is completely incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to repeal only some aspects of the IMA rather than the whole Act, particularly since so many members of this Government have been so vocally opposed to the IMA in the past. Can we please just have a look at some of the stuff that they want to retain? The one that concerns me most, and the one that concerns the range of organisations, groups and charities associated with refugees and asylum seekers, is the retention of section 29.
Let us remind the Committee what section 29 does. It extends the public order disqualification originally introduced by section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and mandates that victims of trafficking and modern slavery who have criminal convictions or are considered a threat to public order be disqualified from support and protection. To me, that provision is deeply concerning, as it means that victims of trafficking, many of whom have been coerced into committing crimes as part of their exploitation, could face detention, deportation or removal rather than the support and recovery that they need.
Pete Wishart
I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figures, but let me give him some in return. Home Office statistics from 2024 revealed that 70% of the individuals disqualified under the provision had elements of criminal exploitation in their case. What is so wrong about this particular measure is that it stops us giving the necessary and relevant support that we should give—that we owe—to people who have been victims of human trafficking.
Pete Wishart
This is where we start to get back into very uncomfortable and dangerous territory, where it is going to be up to the individual to prove that they are not guilty of such crimes. This is a blanket clause that will entrap them and leave it to them to make their way through the courts to prove their innocence when they have been innocent all the time, or particularly when they have been victims of trafficking and forced into criminal activity. The system could punish vulnerable individuals who were coerced into committing crimes, often by their traffickers, thus reinforcing the power dynamic that allows traffickers to exploit their victims further.
The retention of section 29 increases the likelihood of re-trafficking and re-exploitation as victims might fear coming forward to the authorities due to the threat of detention, removal or criminalisation. That has issues for us in Scotland. Quite rightly, I suppose, immigration is totally and utterly reserved, but we have responsibility under our devolved powers to ensure that victims of modern slavery who come to Scotland are looked after and tended to by Scottish legislation. There are powers that we have within Scotland.
In retaining section 29 of the IMA, the Bill also restricts the ability of the Scottish Government to support the victims under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. The Scottish Act places a duty on Scottish Ministers to secure immediate support and recovery services for victims of human trafficking and exploitation. In Scotland we have tried to design a system that, unlike this Bill, places an emphasis on victim care and rehabilitation.
That is the approach that we take in Scotland, and that is what we want to try to deliver within our range of devolved power, but it relies on the national referral mechanism identifying and supporting victims of trafficking. The disqualification provisions in section 29 could result in vulnerable individuals in Scotland being detained or deported without being properly identified and supported as trafficking victims, thus weakening the Scottish Government’s ability to implement their own modern slavery protections.
Chris Murray
Like the Safety of Rwanda Act clause, this clause is an inevitability, because it was clear from the outset that these sections of the Illegal Migration Act were never going to work. I know that the Conservatives tend to think that everybody who works in the migration sector set out to thwart their plans at every turn, but that is not the case. I was working for the strategic migration partnership in Scotland when the Illegal Migration Bill was introduced two years ago. I remember sitting down with local authorities, the police and other key stakeholders to look at the legislation, and all of us collectively said, “How is this going to work? This is never going to be feasible in reality.”
I draw people’s attention to one component of the Act that is being repealed, which brings its failure to the fore. The IMA placed on the Home Secretary a duty to remove that applied to all asylum seekers regardless of their case. For anyone under 18, the duty to remove kicked in at the age of 18, but when we were working with local authorities, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children came across and sought asylum in this country. These children are among the most vulnerable people in the world. They have lost their loved ones, they are on their own and they are in a strange country. In the UK, we have a national transfer scheme to disperse them around different local authorities. I worked with the officers who were trying to help those children to get themselves together after a really traumatic experience.
The Illegal Migration Act meant that, at the age of 18, in theory those people would be eligible for immediate removal. What does the Committee think that did to those children in terms of their attempts to secure any services, learn English or get any education? It made it impossible for them and it had a direct impact: they did not leave the country, but they disappeared. Some of them are probably out there being exploited right now, as a direct consequence of clauses in the Illegal Migration Act. The Act did not just put those children at risk; it put incredible pressure on overstretched local services around the country. For the previous Government to set out to use immigration legislation to put further pressure on overstretched local services was only going to have negative consequences in communities, and it should never have happened.
More broadly, the duty to remove, which this clause repeals, essentially shut down the asylum system and created what IPPR has called a “perma-backlog”. We have talked about deterrents and incentives, but I do not see any greater incentive for someone seeking to exploit the asylum system in this country than shutting it down overall, which is what that duty to remove did. It created a vicious circle, which frankly was bad for asylum seekers themselves, because genuine refugees had to spend years in hotel accommodation, which is not a particularly nice thing to do, and for the taxpayer in the UK, because costs soared from £18,000 per asylum seeker per year in 2019 to £47,000 in 2024. It was also bad for communities, because people could not be moved through that process, which clearly put pressure on an already febrile immigration situation. It is good that we are repealing this duty; as I said, it was inevitable, because it was never going to work.
Finally, I understand the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made about human trafficking. It is really important that we offer the victims of modern slavery proper protections, especially when they are forced to commit crimes in the course of being trafficked. This legislation does not completely take that power away, but again, I have to draw on my experience of the last couple of years. There was an increase in the number of exploiters—those who were perpetrators of trafficking—using the trafficking system to evade prosecution. I worked closely with Police Scotland and the Crown Office, including in the Perth and Kinross council area. We saw, particularly in the Vietnamese community, the growth of that development.
We must not see the world in black and white. I am by no means saying that every victim of trafficking is somehow an imposter and we must stop them getting any protection, but it is happening, so it is proper that we keep the clauses in place so that we can tackle that. If we do not have that component, the system will break down. Just as we saw with the asylum system, if we do not have clauses to make the system functional, it will break down and everybody loses.
Tom Hayes
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, who, in an outstanding speech, set out the major challenges with the Illegal Migration Act, part of which will be repealed.
I want to knock on the head four things that were said by the hon. Member for Stockton West. The first was in reference to section 23 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That provision, which the Opposition have talked about, was never implemented by the last Government, so in effect he is opposing a repeal of something that his last Government never started. That feels to me like the worst kind of politics. Between the Royal Assent given to that legislation and the Dissolution of Parliament, 315 days passed, yet no effort was made to implement that provision.
Secondly, sections 9 and 10 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 were, as we have heard, unworkable. They allow people to arrive, claim asylum in the UK, get support, and be put up in a hotel, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh described, will often be in the some of the most dire conditions that somebody can go through after fleeing some of the worst experiences that people can have, be it trauma, famine, disease or poverty—the list goes on. Applications were not processed, so people were not able to leave their hotel. The consequence of that is not just an expensive asylum backlog, but people living with serious psychological scarring for a significant amount of time.
That brings me to my third point. I will talk more about this when we reach new clause 26, which relates to scientific age assessments, but I really do not know how the Conservative party can talk about the welfare and protection of children when we heard oral testimony from the Children’s Commissioner about children who were subject to, and vulnerable to, organ harvesting, rape, sexual assault and disappearance from hotels and into wider society, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, they are likely to continue to be abused, exploited and victimised. I will make those points when we reach that debate.
Lastly, on the point about France, I wish the Conservative party would stop throwing stones at one of nearest neighbours and most important strategic allies, particularly when we are in such a volatile international climate. It is really important that we properly scrutinise legislation, but do not indulge in the petty politics that defined the last Conservative Government, disrupted so many of our international relations, and actually made us less secure.
Dame Angela Eagle
This has been a small but perfectly formed debate on clause 38, which repeals all but six sections of the Illegal Migration Act. As Government Members have pointed out, despite the amount of time that has lapsed since the Act got on the statute book, the vast majority of its provisions have never been commenced. In fact, we had to commence one tiny bit of it so that we could restart asylum processing; that is probably the most it ever had any effect.
Let us be clear: the Illegal Migration Act meant that thousands of asylum claims were put on hold, because of the duty to remove, increasing the backlog, putting incredible pressure on the asylum accommodation system and creating what has been called the “perma-backlog”. We all know what that was, and how big it was when we came into Government. The Act has largely not been commenced, nor will it be under this Government. We need to sort out the chaos created by the unworkable and contradictory provisions in the Act. Despite the bravado of the hon. Member for Stockton West in his earlier contribution, I suspect that most Conservative Ministers knew that the Act was unworkable, because it was not commenced when they had the ministerial capacity and power to do so for all the time between when it was put on the statute book and when we formed a new Government a year later.
The system had been left in chaos but, were the Government to accept new clause 2 and simply repeal the entire Act, it would lead to a missed opportunity to improve our immigration system. I will go through some of that with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. Clause 38 will repeal section 2 of the 2023 Act, which provides for the duty to remove. The Government are committed to ending the migration and economic partnership with Rwanda, so section 2 will be repealed to deliver that by repealing the duty to remove and associated provisions.
On sections 22 to 28 of the Illegal Migration Act, we are not retaining the vast majority of modern slavery provisions in the Act because they are connected to the duty to remove irregular migrants. These sections were never commenced and provided that where a duty to remove was applied for an individual, that individual should be disqualified from the national referral mechanism unless certain limited exemptions applied. We are removing sections 30 to 37 relating to permanent bans on entry, settlement and citizenship, which, while held up as a success by others, were unenforced and unworkable. Sections 57 and 58 of the Act are also repealed. They relate to age assessments, but both sections are unworkable and irrelevant without the duty to remove.
Matt Vickers
Is there any reason we cannot introduce provisions in this area as part of the Bill, and when can we expect to see them?
Dame Angela Eagle
Work is going on in the Department to assess the accuracy of the various methods of age assessment, which ministerial predecessors from the hon. Gentleman’s party commenced, but which has not yet been finished. As soon as we have more idea about how reliable scientific age assessment can be, how expensive it is and all those things, I will either come to Parliament or make a statement about how we intend to proceed. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that because these sections have been repealed we are not interested in scientific age assessments and their potential per se. They were simply unworkable because they were attached to the duty to remove, which was such a feature of the Illegal Migration Act.
The six measures that the Government intend to retain, including where provisions are in force, have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. These powers are all ones that the Government see as important tools to allow for the proper operation of the immigration system and to achieve wider priorities alongside the powerful measures set out in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire talked about section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act. The public order disqualification under the Nationality and Borders Act is currently in operation. It enables decisions to disqualify certain individuals from support and protections afforded by the national referral mechanisms on grounds of public order and bad faith. Public order grounds include serious criminality and threats to national security. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering the individual’s vulnerabilities. That is the sole modern slavery measure in the Illegal Migration Act that is being retained. It would, if commenced, amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. Disqualification will continue to be assessed on an individual basis.
Pete Wishart
I am glad that the Minister got to that last sentence, because it is quite clear from section 29 that victims of modern slavery only have to be considered a threat to public order. It is quite likely that many victims of modern slavery will get caught up in this; in fact, they already have. Is the Minister happy that those who were probably coerced into criminal activity will now almost be blanket-banned from any opportunity to go through the asylum process in the United Kingdom?
Dame Angela Eagle
There will not be a blanket ban. Individuals who have been subject to public order disqualification will have been disqualified for things such as multiple drug offences, possessing a firearm and ammunition, multiple counts of sexual assault and assault by beating, grooming and engaging in sexual communication with a child. Those are the kind of things that currently lead to public order disqualifications. Nothing in the retention of section 29 will mean that individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis cannot be taken into account. It is important to understand that that will still happen. If it were commenced—it has not yet been—section 29 would introduce a duty to apply the public order disqualification, unless there are compelling circumstances that the disqualification should not apply. That still ensures case-by-case consideration.
The citizenship ban is removed from the Bill because it was unworkable and unenforced; that is, again, attached to the duties to remove. We have updated the good character guidance to prevent people from gaining citizenship if they arrived illegally by dangerous journeys. The idea is to emphasise that citizenship is not a right, but a privilege. We will continue to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis.
The other sections that we have retained are thought to be useful. The six measures in section 12 emphasise the right of the Secretary of State to determine what constitutes a reasonable time period to detain a person for the specific statutory purpose of effecting removal from the UK. Section 52 allows flexibility in our judiciary by making first-tier tribunal judges eligible to sit in the upper-tier tribunal. I cannot imagine anyone in the Committee would worry about that.
Section 59, if commenced, would extend the inadmissibility provisions to asylum and human rights claims from nationals in a list of generally safe states. Section 60 requires an annual cap to be set on the number of individuals admitted to the UK by safe and legal routes. Section 62 adds failing to provide information, such as a passcode to an electronic device, to the behaviours that could be considered damaging to the credibility of an asylum and human rights claim. All those issues are thought to provide utility, but outside the context of the duty to remove.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I congratulate everyone on their very prompt arrival.
Clause 39
Sections 37 and 38: consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to see you, the fourth Chair of our Committee, Dame Siobhain. I welcome you to the Chair. It is a pleasure to serve with you directing us.
The clause is a simple consequential one: it removes references to and amendments made by the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 when they no longer serve a purpose. During the passage of those two pieces of legislation it was necessary to amend existing Acts of Parliament, to cross-reference them and to enable enactment of the provisions within them. Few, if any, of those provisions were ever properly commenced or enacted but, since this Government intend to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act, which we spent most of this morning discussing, those references no longer serve any practical purpose. They should therefore be removed from the four existing Acts of Parliament.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain, as it was yesterday afternoon. It is good to see you two days in a row.
The clause, as the Minister said, makes consequential amendments necessary as a result of the two clauses that we discussed this morning: clause 37, which repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, and clause 38, which repeals provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. As we do not support either of those repeals, we do not support these revisions or agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
We have had our debates about the contents of those Acts. The clause concerns truly miscellaneous aspects, although I understand the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument. I certainly hope that we will press on and agree clause 39.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
The clause introduces schedule 1, which will allow the governance arrangements for the Immigration Services Commissioner and deputy commissioner to be made more flexible. That will bring them in line with other public appointments by allowing for interim or shorter appointment lengths.
Schedule 1 sets out that the commissioner and deputy commissioner are to hold office for a term not exceeding five years. That allows the appointments to be for less than five years; currently, there is a fixed five-year term. Schedule 1 will make it discretionary to appoint a deputy commissioner, allowing for the governance arrangements to remain flexible to meet the demands of the organisation. It will enable the Home Secretary to appoint a senior, experienced member of staff to act in the commissioner’s place in certain circumstances. It is to be used, for example, to ensure that cover is in place during a public appointment process where there is a vacancy in the commissioner and deputy commissioner posts. It does not replace the provision to appoint a deputy commissioner and will ensure continued regulatory oversight of immigration advisers, which is the point of this organisation.
The schedule will mean that the work of the Immigration Services Commissioner will continue and will operate more flexibly to ensure that good immigration advice is readily available. That is critical to the effective running of a coherent, efficient and fair immigration system.
Katie Lam
As the Minister has outlined, clause 40 inserts schedule 1 into the Bill. That provides that the Immigration Services Commissioner is not to hold office for a term exceeding five years. The current regime is based on there being a commissioner and deputy, so schedule 1 sets out that the commissioner may appoint a deputy. There is also a provision to enable a member of the commissioner’s staff to act in the commissioner’s place in certain circumstances, such as the roles of commissioner and deputy both being vacant. That effectively allows for the appointment of an interim commissioner.
As was said in evidence to the Committee, these amendments do not seem to us to have operational consequence. We will not oppose them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 41
Detention and exercise of functions pending deportation
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 7, clause 41, page 35, line 32, leave out subsection (17).
This amendment would leave out the subsection of this clause that applies subsections (1) to (13) (relating to detention and exercise of functions pending deportation) retrospectively, i.e. as if they have always had effect.
Pete Wishart
It is great to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain; it makes a pleasant change from what we have had in the past couple of weeks. I say that in the nicest way to Mr Stuart.
Pete Wishart
Clause 41 introduces a significant expansion of detention powers, allowing individuals to be detained from the moment a deportation is considered rather than waiting for a formal order. However, my main concern with the clause is that it is to apply retrospectively, meaning it would legally validate past detentions that were previously unlawful. As would be expected, the provision has sparked serious concerns among legal experts, human rights organisations and advocacy groups, raising critical questions about the rule of law, human rights and judicial oversight.
We had the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association with us as part of an evidence session. They have expressed great concern with this provision, saying:
“We are concerned with the dangerous precedent which would be set if unlawful deprivation of liberty were to be treated as lawful—such retrospectivity undermines the rule of law and remains wholly unjustified in the materials accompanying the Bill.”
I have looked at this issue and there does not seem to be any sufficient justification for this exceptional measure. The ILPA warns us that it could rewrite history, denying justice to individuals who could have sought remedies for unlawful detention.
Amnesty International, which again gave very good evidence to the Committee, has also voiced strong objections. It has highlighted how detention powers have expanded significantly while judicial oversight has weakened, leading to risks of serious injustice.
Bail for Immigration Detainees has stressed that clause 41 risks
“further criminalising migrants and refugees”.
It urges instead for a system that upholds human rights and dignity.
Combined with the Illegal Migration Act, the clause could lead to longer, more expensive and potentially unlawful detentions in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that clause 41 effectively makes lawful past detentions that were not compliant with due process at the time, yet the European convention on human rights memorandum does not properly address whether that retrospective validation aligns with the fundamental legal safeguards of article 5. I would particularly like the Minister to address those concerns.
Clause 41 therefore undermines accountability, weakens judicial scrutiny and risks setting a dangerous precedent through which the Government can retroactively legitimise actions that would otherwise have been unlawful. Given the weight of these concerns, there is a strong case for leaving out the retrospective provisions from clause 41, and that is what my amendment 7 seeks to do. Upholding the rule of law means ensuring that detention powers are subject to proper legal safeguards and that individuals are not denied their fundamental rights through legislative backtracking.
Dame Angela Eagle
The purpose of clause 41 is to clarify the existing powers of detention pending deportation set out in schedule 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State can detain individuals once they have been notified that deportation is being considered. It also aligns the power to detain with the power to take biometrics and to search for nationality documents. That is because the taking of biometric information and any other searches will ordinarily take place at the point that somebody is detained. The effect of clause 41 is to make clear that a person subject to deportation may be detained at any stage of the deportation process. It strengthens an existing power; it does not create a new power. It clarifies a power that has always existed and been used for this purpose.
Another effect of the clause is to confirm that the Secretary of State may take biometrics and search for those documents. Since clause 41 clarifies existing powers, the detention provisions it contains are regarded as always having had effect. It is extremely important for Members to understand what the clarification of the powers of detention means. If a person is subject to deportation on the basis that the deportation is conducive to the public good, they may be detained at any stage of the deportation process. It is extremely important that the Home Office should be able to detain those it is seeking to deport on that basis. Some of these foreign national offenders pose a high risk of harm to the public. Therefore, inability to detain them could have a direct impact on public safety.
The clause makes it clear that it is lawful to detain a person once they are notified that the Home Office is considering whether to make a deportation order against them, but that is not a new detention power; it has been misunderstood in some of the commentary from outside of this place. The clause clarifies an existing power to ensure there is no ambiguity about when someone subject to a conducive deportation can be detained. The accurate identification of such people is very important.
The clause also makes consequential amendments to existing powers to search detained persons—potential deportees—for documents that prove their identity or nationality, and to take their biometrics upon their being detained. Clause 41 sets out the power to detain pending deportation, as the Home Office has always understood it to operate. It is therefore right that the provision applies retrospectively. That deals with amendment 7, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and seeks to remove the retrospective element of the clause.
Clause 41 clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention. There are important public safety reasons why these powers need to be put beyond doubt. Clause 41 clarifies the powers as the Home Office has always understood them to operate. There will be no operational impact that we can assess, or increased use of the power, and no effect on people in relation to whom this power has been exercised. It is entirely right that these provisions should apply retrospectively in these circumstances.
Pete Wishart
I hear the Minister’s justification for the powers and why she feels they are necessary, but I do not hear any compelling reason for why they have to be introduced retrospectively. What on earth is that supposed to help with? She knows the range of concerns raised by a number of legal organisations. I wish she would address their concerns about the consequences of the clause.
Dame Angela Eagle
The clause seeks to put beyond any doubt that the Home Office has the power to detain, in conducive deportation cases, at the earliest point. It has been doing that for many years. The clarification in the clause applies retrospectively to ensure that those who have been detained in the past have not been detained unlawfully. We do not believe they have, but this puts it beyond doubt. To clarify, this is not an extension of deportation powers; it is putting beyond doubt in the Bill the understanding of how and when these powers can be used—at the earliest opportunity, if it is a conducive deportation. The powers, including to detain at the earliest opportunity, have always existed.
If the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire were agreed to, it would cast doubt on many of the arrests and detentions ahead of deportations that have happened in the past, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman would want to do. To reassure the hon. Gentleman one final time, this is not an extension of deportation powers; it is a clarification of the way that they have always been understood to work. The clause puts beyond legal doubt that if somebody is being detained pending deportation, they can be detained lawfully at the earliest opportunity. That understanding has always been the case, but the clause puts it beyond any legal doubt.
Katie Lam
Clause 41 confirms that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves the notification that deportation is being considered, when that deportation is conducive to the public good. We support this provision to allow for detention before a deportation order is signed, but that only applies if the Secretary of State has notified the person in writing. Can I seek reassurance from the Minister that the requirement for a written notice will not build any delay into the process? We also support the provision in clause 42 to allow the Home Office to capture biometrics at the new, earlier point of detention.
Pete Wishart
I will not detain the Committee for long. I do not like clause 41 anyway—I think the extension of deportation powers is overwhelming and I do not believe they are required—but I do not like this retrospection one bit. I have not secured an adequate explanation from the Minister about why that is necessary. I would therefore like to put my amendment to a vote, Dame Siobhain.
The Chair
Thank you for clarifying, as that was going to be my next question. Does anybody else wish to contribute?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she sought. If somebody is going to be detained, it will always be done with written notice, and that should not delay anything—it has not in the past.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Angela Eagle
You are getting a lot of practice with locking and unlocking the doors and having Divisions, Dame Siobhain—it is quite exciting this afternoon.
Clause 42 modernises our powers to capture biometric information, so that we have greater flexibility over who can take that information. It will enable a wider range of appropriately trained people to take biometric information, strengthening processing resilience following instances of small boat crossings or unexpected arrivals. In a situation where it is essential to capture biometrics at the earliest opportunity and through streamlined processes, we will be able to utilise our resources more effectively. For example, the measure will enable contractors working at a short-term holding facility to capture biometrics in the same way as other contractors based in detention centres currently do. The clause also includes a power to make secondary legislation where there is a need for others to be able to capture biometric information. That is a future proofing of the legislation.
These are sensible and necessary measures to ensure that we can identify people quickly and establish whether they pose a threat to public safety if they have arrived in an irregular or illegal way.
Katie Lam
We are essentially supportive of clause 42, which among other things allows a person employed by a contractor in a short-term holding facility to be an authorised person to take fingerprints. The clause also includes a regulation-making power to allow other types of people to be authorised for this purpose.
May I ask the Minister how the regulation-making power is intended to be used? Are there currently other categories of people whom the Secretary of State or others in the Department would like to authorise to take fingerprints, or is this essentially a future-proofing measure, as the Minister mentioned?
Dame Angela Eagle
This is essentially future proofing. If another category or range of people became available, we may future proof this power and use the regulation-making power to ensure that they are taking biometrics lawfully.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Articles for use in serious crime
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clauses 43 and 44 cover the creation of two new offences concerning articles for use in serious crime. Law enforcement agencies are increasingly encountering individuals in possession of, or supplying, articles suspected to be intended for serious crime. However, proving intent or knowledge for a prosecution is often difficult, as the connection to a specific crime may not be immediately clear and facilitators frequently go undetected.
To address that challenge, clause 43 introduces two new criminal offences. The first criminalises the possession of specified articles; the second targets the importation, manufacture, adaptation, supply or offer to supply of those articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that they will be used in a serious offence. The specified articles include templates for 3D-printed firearms components, pill presses and vehicle concealments. Those concealments are particularly concerning in relation to smuggling operations, as they are often used to hide individuals for irregular immigration purposes.
The accused will need to prove that they did not intend for the article to be used in a serious offence, or that they could not have reasonably suspected it—given the few, if any, legitimate uses for the articles I have just mentioned. Those offences will be triable either way, with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a fine or both.
Clause 43 defines “serious offences” broadly, to include drug trafficking, firearms offences and assisting unlawful migration, as outlined in schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. The clause strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies to target those facilitating serious crime. It does that by closing legal gaps and addressing emerging criminal tools.
Clause 44 defines the specific articles to be included in the new criminal offences in clause 43. As I said, the articles are templates of 3D-printed firearms or their components, pill presses and encapsulators, and vehicle concealments. Law enforcement agencies have been clear that those articles are being increasingly used by organised crime gangs, and they will continue to be used unless we take action now. 3D-printed firearms templates are increasingly being used by organised criminals, and they are at present not illegal to possess. Pill presses are being used to manufacture illicit drugs, particularly benzodiazepines. Similarly, vehicle concealments have become a significant concern for law enforcement agencies, and they are used as aids in people smuggling and irregular migration.
Clause 44 also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the list of specified articles, allowing the law to adapt to emerging threats. Any changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Home Office will continue to work closely with law enforcement agencies and other partners to monitor and update that list, ensuring that it remains relevant as criminal tactics evolve. By capturing those articles, the aim is to disrupt the enablers and facilitators who profit from supplying tools for organised crime.
Katie Lam
The clauses seem broadly reasonable, but we have a few questions on which I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister. Clause 43 creates two new offences: the possession of articles for use in serious immigration crime, and the importation, manufacture, and supply or offer to supply of articles for use in serious immigration crime. Could the Minister explain whether she feels that UK Border Force currently has the right capabilities to identify and intercept the harmful materials captured by the clause?
Clause 43 reverses the evidential burden of proof, in that a person charged with offences under it can successfully prove their defence if they provide enough evidence in court to raise a question about the issue, and the prosecution cannot prove the opposite beyond reasonable doubt. Could the Minister please explain why the decision has been taken to do that? The maximum penalty for the offences created under the clause is imprisonment for five years, a fine or both. Could the Minister please explain how and why those penalties were decided on?
Clause 44 defines “relevant article” for the purposes of the offences created in clause 43. Could the Minister please explain whether clauses 43 and 44 provide any operational benefit in terms of tackling smugglers operating abroad, and if so, how?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Siobhain. I want to dwell briefly on clause 43 because it embodies a significant theme in the Bill: preparing our country for the challenges we face today and those we will face to a greater extent in the future. In that context, it is so important to talk about the risk posed to our country’s security by 3D-printed firearms.
I commend the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who has done an enormous amount of work on this issue. 3D-printed firearms are a serious threat to our security, and present a new challenge to law enforcement because they can easily be made at home and are untraceable and undetectable. Indeed, files containing IKEA-like step-by-step guides to 3D print firearms at home can be downloaded from the web in as little as three clicks. That is terrifying. If we can tackle that through the Bill, that feels like a significant contribution.
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent may be familiar with the provisions in clauses 43 and 44, because they were in a Bill introduced by her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is now the shadow Home Secretary. That Bill was interrupted by the general election. Oddly, I chaired that Bill Committee in the last Parliament and listened to him make a speech about this issue. I therefore hope that there will be no real objection to the powers we need to take in clauses 43 and 44 to make it easier to disrupt and prevent harm from serious organised crime, some of the tools used in it and the facilitators who enable it. Such people might not have been at the scene of the crime, but they have enabled a lot of harm by supplying or importing the goods that I mentioned.
There are two sets of offences, which are designed to target different types of activity. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent asked about the evidential burden. These articles do not have ordinary, normal uses that I would consider legitimate. Printing 3D guns, or having pill presses in order to produce drugs for street sale, does not seem to be as legitimate as, say, purchasing a boat engine or indeed a boat. Given that there are no real, legitimate uses for such items, we think that placing the evidential burden on the defence to explain why on earth the person charged with possessing them has them is wholly reasonable.
Clauses 43 and 44 are intended to disrupt serious organised crime efforts to penetrate our border with paraphernalia for producing drugs or guns, or any of the things that go along with serious organised crime activity in this country, and thereby to keep people safe. I hope that the Committee will support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Confiscation of assets
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 45 amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to include offences related to the possession and supply of articles intended for serious crime, as outlined in clause 43. It will enable law enforcement agencies to seize the assets of individuals convicted under clause 43.
Specifically, the clause adds:
“Offences relating to things for use in serious crime”
to the criminal lifestyle schedules for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A defendant convicted of an offence listed in those schedules will automatically be deemed to have led a criminal lifestyle and to have benefited from criminal conduct over a period of time. That means that assets obtained or spent in the six years prior to conviction are presumed to be derived from criminal conduct and are subject to confiscation unless the defendant can prove otherwise. However, the court is not required to make that assumption if it would result in injustice or is shown to be incorrect.
Confiscation orders are calculated based on the defendant’s monetary gains from crime—known as the benefit—and the assets they have available to them when the order is made. Orders are made to reflect the amount gained from crime and can be increased if the defendant’s finances improve. Non-payment of orders can lead to the defendant returning to prison.
By including these offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act, we can target financially criminals who profit from facilitating crime, disrupting both the crime and the financial gains that support it.
Katie Lam
Clause 45 allows the relevant articles listed under clause 44 to be confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act. We support this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Electronic monitoring requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
The purpose of clause 46 is to remove any ambiguity about the court’s power to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of a serious crime prevention order or interim serious crime prevention order.
As currently drafted, the clause applies in England and Wales for any serious crime prevention order or interim serious crime prevention order, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland in terrorism-related cases only. However, since the Bill’s introduction, further legal complexities have come to light regarding the devolved Governments’ powers to impose an electronic monitoring condition. Pending agreement from the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, an amendment will be tabled to remove that express provision for Scotland. Northern Ireland’s position is still to be determined. I point that devolution complication out to Committee members and will keep them informed as those discussions develop.
Electronic monitoring serves as a deterrent, but it also improves the detection of any breaches. If the subject violates the conditions, it enables quicker intervention by law enforcement agencies. The clause outlines specific requirements for both the courts and the individual, including the obligation for the subject to consent to the installation and maintenance of monitoring equipment and to avoid tampering with it.
Additional safeguards are included. For instance, electronic monitoring can be imposed only for up to 12 months at a time, with the possibility of extension. A further safeguard requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on handling monitoring data, ensuring consistency and clarity for law enforcement.
This clause on electronic monitoring for those subject to serious crime prevention orders will enhance the effectiveness of such orders and interim SCPOs, supporting efforts to disrupt serious and organised crime, reduce harm and protect the public. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Katie Lam
Clause 46 allows the courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a serious crime prevention order. The clause is helpful for investigating suspects who are already in the UK, and we broadly support it. Will the Minister confirm that the requirement for electronic monitoring will apply to those who are on immigration bail? What value does the Minister feel serious crime prevention orders might have as a deterrent for those operating abroad?
Clause 46 specifies that there will be a code of practice to outline the expectations, safeguards and broad responsibilities for the data gathered, retention and sharing of information on these orders. When will that code of practice be issued, and can the Minister please outline what the Government expect to be included?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I would like the Minister to define electronic monitoring for us, if she can. I do not believe that there is such a definition in the Bill or in other Acts of Parliament. As a result, I worry that there is confusion, so I would welcome her thoughts.
Dame Angela Eagle
We are talking about electronic monitoring in the context of serious crime prevention orders; we are not talking about monitoring simply in connection to being an asylum seeker or migrant. I would not want Opposition Members to worry or mix up those two things.
This part of the Bill is about dealing with serious and organised criminality, some of which will involve people smuggling, and some of which will involve drugs, firearms or other serious organised crime. This is electronic tagging in the context of the granting of serious and organised crime orders, or interim serious and organised crime orders, which are designed to disrupt and prevent the activities of serious organised crime groups, not just general asylum seekers or migrants. Obviously, there may be some connection between the two, but it is not direct in this area.
Those orders and their conditions, such as electronic monitoring, therefore will not apply to migrants generally. Law enforcement agencies use serious crime prevention orders to manage individuals who have been convicted of, or are suspected of, serious criminality, where the order will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the person’s involvement in serious crime.
Serious crime prevention orders can be imposed on offenders for a range of offences relating to people smuggling. The specific conditions of the order will be a matter for the judge in the High Court who makes it, and for the law enforcement body that makes the application. This is very focused, and it is all about the context of the individual who has been served with such an order. For that to happen, there has to be evidence of their involvement in serious and organised crime.
Clearly, tagging is about being able to check where people are, while electronic monitoring can also apply to other activity. It will apply in a particular context to a particular person for disruption reasons, so there is not one definition of electronic tagging. I hope that helps the hon. Member for Woking to understand the monitoring that we are talking about. On that basis, I hope members of the Committee will agree to clause 46.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Interim serious crime prevention orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 47 introduces interim serious crime prevention orders as part of the wider regime of serious crime prevention orders established under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Interim serious crime prevention orders are designed to protect the public while a full serious crime prevention order application is considered. The Court can impose an interim serious crime prevention order within hours, imposing a range of conditions and restrictions to disrupt further criminal behaviour. For example, anyone suspected of being involved in people trafficking or other serious crime could face bans on travel, using the internet and mobile phone use.
Katie Lam
Clause 47 introduces a new provision for interim serious crime prevention orders. These allow the High Court to impose immediate restrictions, pending the determination of a full serious crime prevention order application. The Court can do that if it considers that it is just to do so. Can the Minister explain a little more by what process the Court will decide whether it is just? Is the criterion that it is necessary for public protection?
Proposed new section 5F of the Serious Crime Act makes provision for without notice applications. That is where the application for an interim serious crime prevention order, or the variation of an interim serious crime prevention order, is made without notice being given to the person against whom the order is made, in circumstances where notice of that application is likely to prejudice the outcome. Subsection (2) of proposed new section 5F makes provision for the Court to allow the relevant person to make representations about the order as soon as is reasonably practicable. Can the Minister explain whether that will always happen after the order is granted?
Dame Angela Eagle
The High Court will be empowered to impose an interim serious crime prevention order if it considers it just to do so. In other words, it is not an evidential test, because the Court does not apply a standard of proof. Rather, it invites the Court to impose an order before it has heard and tested all the evidence in instances that require fast-paced action to prevent and disrupt serious and organised crime. It is therefore an exercise of judgment or evaluation. There is a precedent for this approach in interim sexual risk orders and interim slavery and trafficking risk orders, which are currently a feature of the system and work reasonably well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 48
Applicants for making of orders and interim orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Currently, the High Court can make a serious crime prevention order only upon application from the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the police in terrorism-related cases. However, High Court serious crime prevention orders have not been fully utilised; between 2011 and 2021, only two applications were made, and only one resulted in a successful order. Clause 48 extends the list of agencies that can apply directly to the High Court for a serious crime prevention order, or an interim serious crime order, to the National Crime Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the police in all cases, including the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police. The clause also specifies who within each agency is authorised to apply for these orders.
This extension will simplify and expedite the application processes for serious crime prevention orders, making it easier for agencies that are directly involved in tackling serious crime to make an application where appropriate. It gets rid of a gateway process that has proven to be so tight that it has not allowed very many of these orders to go forward at all. Those agencies are often best placed to apply for a serious crime prevention order as they already have an in-depth knowledge of the case.
The clause also requires the CPS to be consulted by the applicant authority, as it will continue to have responsibility for ensuring that the order is not used as a substitute for prosecution. That is a very important part of ensuring that these orders work appropriately. In practice, this clause will make serious crime prevention orders more readily available to the agencies that are most likely to use them, to ensure that this powerful tool is used to best effect to protect the public by preventing and disrupting serious and organised crime.
Katie Lam
Clause 48 details who can apply to make orders and interim orders, and it replaces and extends the previous list in section 8 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Can the Minister please explain how long an application for an interim serious crime prevention order might take when made to either the High Court or the Crown court?
Tom Hayes
I want to reflect on where we have got up to. We have moved through the clauses at quite a pace, and that is very pleasing to see. The Bill responds to the requests of operationally and frontline-focused people in law enforcement and border security, and it is an attempt to give them the tools and powers that they need. I particularly wanted to mention that in the context of interim serious crime prevention orders, which we have spoken about in clauses 47 and 48.
That cuts such a sharp contrast with what has happened over recent years. In 2022, one Home Secretary introduced the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. At the time, the Government said that that would deter people from crossing in small boats, but it did not. In 2023, another Home Secretary brought in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. At the time, the Government said that that would turn people away from crossing the channel in small boats, but it did not. In 2024, another Home Secretary brought in the Safety of Rwanda Act, which happily we have just repealed today. At the time, the Government talked about the prospect of sending people to Rwanda, and they said that alone would be sufficient to deter people from crossing the channel in small boats. It is no wonder that that failed, too.
I wanted to set out how in 2022, 2023 and 2024 we had three separate Acts, which all aimed to do something and failed to do so. They have not delivered what operationally focused people have requested. We really need to look at how, just eight months into this new Government, we are turning the page on our asylum system and giving enforcement powers to the people who need them. We are also tidying up the statute book and ensuring greater co-ordination across the key agencies that can secure our border. I commend clause 48 to the Committee, as I do the series of clauses before it and the Bill overall.
Dame Angela Eagle
The idea behind the creation of interim serious crime prevention orders is to ensure that they can be brought into use ahead of a longer lasting serious crime prevention order. The widening of the range of organisations that can apply for them is designed to empower organisations such as the National Crime Agency, HMRC and the MOD police to apply, because they are much closer to the evidence that could enable the disruption of a particular serious organised crime group.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent asked how long it would take to get such an order, and that would vary from case to case. It depends on the evidence. As I pointed out in relation to the previous clause, this is about the High Court reviewing the papers. It is not about a trial or a pre-trial; it is just about issuing an order that will prevent something that might cause damage from happening. We think that the changes made by the clauses that we have just debated, up to and including clause 48, make it more likely that serious and organised crime orders will be used and will be effective.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Notification requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 49 amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to introduce a standardised list of notification requirements for individuals and bodies corporate that are subject to serious crime prevention orders. This is a process of standardisation. Currently, notification requirements are added at the court’s discretion on a case-by-case basis. The clause will standardise those requirements for all serious crime prevention orders, improving the consistency and monitoring of the orders across police forces.
We have worked closely with law enforcement partners to identify appropriate requirements. The standard list will include monitoring legitimate income, checking addresses or communication methods for signs that criminal activities are being re-established, and monitoring foreign travel to assess potential indications of a return to crime. The courts can then impose additional requirements and conditions as part of the serious crime prevention order.
For bodies corporate, a designated individual must be named to liaise with the police and provide the notifiable information—including personal details, employment, financial data and contact information—which is essential for law enforcement to ensure compliance and assess risk to public safety.
The clause includes a delegated power to add to the list of notification requirements, ensuring flexibility to meet operational needs as technology evolves. The statutory instrument will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Individuals who are subject to a serious crime prevention order must provide the notifiable information within three days of the order coming into force. Failure to provide information, or providing false information, will be a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to five years’ imprisonment. The standardisation of notifications will improve consistency in managing serious criminals and improve law enforcement agencies’ ability to assess risk and therefore more effectively protect the public.
Katie Lam
Clause 49 sets out a prescribed set of notification requirements, so that a person who is subject to a serious crime prevention order is required to provide the police or the applicant authorities with certain information. We support the clause, although can the Minister explain why three days has been given as the deadline to respond with the notifiable information requested?
Dame Angela Eagle
Three days seems a reasonable amount of time to allow the individual or body corporate concerned to gather the information, but also to ensure that the authorities get it in a timely way, so as to prevent any potential harm that might come from delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Orders by Crown Court on acquittal or when allowing an appeal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Currently, the High Court has the authority to impose a serious crime prevention order without a conviction, provided that the Court is satisfied that the person has been involved in serious crime and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the order will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting their involvement in serious crime.
Clause 50 amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to grant the Crown court the power to impose a serious crime prevention order on individuals who have been acquitted of an offence, or in circumstances where the appeal has been allowed, if the same two-limb test is met. There may be cases where a person is acquitted but a serious crime prevention order is still needed. This can happen if the threshold for a criminal conviction is not met but there is still enough evidence to show that the person is involved in serious crime, and that the order would protect the public.
The Crown court would have just heard the evidence of the case and would be in the best position to assess whether an order is necessary to protect the public. Again, this approach is not new; similar provisions are found in other laws, such as domestic abuse protection orders under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, where orders can still be issued even after an individual has been acquitted. The effect of this clause is to streamline the process, enabling serious crime prevention orders to be applied more regularly and effectively in appropriate cases.
Katie Lam
Clause 50 allows the Crown court the power to impose a serious crime prevention order on acquittal or when allowing an appeal. Subsection (2) provides that in order to impose a serious crime prevention order in these circumstances, the court has to be satisfied both that the person has been involved in serious crime and that the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by that person in serious crime in England or Wales. Why do both tests need to be satisfied for a serious crime prevention order to be imposed? Where these cases involve acquittal, as the Minister outlined, it might be hard to satisfy the first test. It seems to us that the second test of protecting the public is sufficient grounds to impose a serious crime prevention order.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a two-limb test. Obviously, the evidential test for criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt. There is a lower evidential test in other court instances, and it may very well be that someone who did not pass the “beyond reasonable doubt” test in a criminal trial would still be considered by the court to be involved in criminal activity, and therefore they would pass the first limb of the test. They would pass the second limb as they would still be likely to be involved in criminal activity in the future. We think that the two-limb test is an appropriate response to protect civil liberties, while protecting the public from the behaviour of those who are involved in serious and organised crime. We think that that balance is about right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Martin McCluskey.)
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to [email protected] and to switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are of course not allowed during sittings.
Clause 75
Eligibility verification: independent review
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 75, page 41, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), ‘the relevant committee’ means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would ensure further oversight into the appointment of the “Independent person”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 75, page 41, line 29, leave out “person” and insert “board”.
This amendment would replace the “independent person” with an independent board.
Amendment 39, in clause 75, page 41, line 32, leave out “person” and insert “board”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 75, page 42, line 19, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations appoint persons to, and confer functions upon, an independent board for the purposes of securing compliance with subsections (1) to (6).”
This amendment is related to Amendment 38.
Amendment 41, in clause 75, page 42, line 23, leave out first “person” and insert “board”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 42, in clause 75, page 42, line 24, leave out “person” and insert “board”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Clause stand part.
Steve Darling
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. We have touched previously on having an independent overview of the activities that will take place under the Bill, and this is another opportunity to have the checks and balances I have alluded to on a number of occasions. Of course, all Members in the room are reasonable people, but we see in world politics what happens when people are unreasonable. Given that the United Kingdom’s constitution is unwritten, beginning to build those checks and balances into legislation is important. Amendment 37 would hardwire them into the Bill, and I ask that the Minister give it serious consideration. I have heard hints that it may be taken into account in one way or the other when the Bill goes to the other place, but I would welcome some reassurance, if possible, that that is the case.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, the amendment is about checks and balances. We appreciate that the Bill has been introduced in the context of the Government’s desire to cut the benefits bill, but the Treasury deeming something to be financially necessary does not necessarily make it right.
The percentage lost to fraud and error is relatively modest, but of course the sums are huge because the overall number is huge. We need to remember that these measures will not get anywhere near recovering all that money, so the question is: is the action proportionate, considering the sacrifice we are making in terms of civil liberties? It is vital that we get the best value from public money, but the amount expected to be recovered is just 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error of £10 billion, and just a quarter of what is lost to official error at the Department for Work and Pensions.
As drafted, the clause empowers the Minister to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the Secretary of State’s function under schedule 3B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. There is no external oversight, and that undermines the credibility of the role. Our amendment states:
“Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons”,
which means
“a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
Without proper scrutiny, the role’s independence is undermined, potentially damaging trust in the process.
The Committee previously heard evidence from Dr Kassem of Aston University, who stated:
“I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.” ––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 13, Q15.]
A board would ensure that the appointment is truly independent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We therefore propose that the Minister must consult the relevant House of Commons Committee before making such an appointment. That simple steps would ensure genuine independence and parliamentary scrutiny, and would strengthen transparency and public confidence.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Western. As we have just heard, Liberal Democrat amendments 37 to 42 would mean that, before appointing an independent person, the Minister had to consult a Committee of the House of Commons nominated by Mr Speaker. Amendments 38 to 42 seek to replace an independent person with an independent board, and therefore to allow the Secretary of State to appoint persons to, and confer functions upon, the board.
I have a couple of questions for the hon. Member for Torbay. What greater independence do the Liberal Democrats think will be gained by changing the requirement, given that both the independent board and the independent person would be appointed by the Secretary of State? What practical difference will the amendments make to improve the review process and ensure that it is high quality?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. With your permission, I will speak to amendment 37 before speaking to amendments 38 to 42. I will then speak to why the unamended clause 75 should stand part of the Bill.
Before I begin, I will respond to a couple of the comments made by the hon. Member for Horsham on the relatively small amounts of fraud and error we see. With this particular measure, as he is aware, we are initially targeting the three benefits with the highest levels of fraud and error. To take universal credit as an example, it is £1 in every £8 spent, which is a tremendously high number and one we must do everything we can to bring down. However, it is worth recognising and explaining to colleagues that the measures in the Bill are part of a broader package to tackle fraud, which reached £8.6 billion across the relevant period. This is not the beginning and end of the Department’s work on fraud across that period, but it is the part of that overall package that requires legislation.
Returning to my substantive notes on the question of a “board” versus a “person”, I think there may be some misunderstanding of definitions here. Amendment 37 seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to consult a relevant Committee of the House of Commons before appointing the independent overseer of the eligibility verification measure. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I will be resisting it.
We recognise the importance of appointing the right person or body to oversee the use of the eligibility verification measure. That is why we have made it a requirement that the overseer report annually on the use of the power directly to the Secretary of State, who will then lay the report before Parliament. We have included that key safeguard to ensure the effective and proportionate use of this power and to introduce greater transparency in the use of it. The person or body will be appointed following a fair and public recruitment process, which will be carried out under the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
I assure the Committee today that we will abide by the governance code on public appointments throughout the process. Whether this role is subject to pre-appointment scrutiny will be governed by the code, and we will follow its guidance at all times. The final decision on who will oversee this measure will, in all cases, be made by the Secretary of State. That is because the governance code on public appointments points out:
“The ultimate responsibility for appointments and thus the selection of those appointed rests with Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions.”
We will keep the House informed about the process at all key stages, including when the process is set to begin and on the proposed final appointment.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Am I right in thinking that the Work and Pensions Committee will be entitled to call any witness, including whoever is appointed to this role, to give evidence to it and to be scrutinised by its members?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Select Committee always has that power, and were it to have any concerns whatever, it would look to exercise that power at the earliest opportunity.
I recognise that the amendment has been tabled with good intentions. However, because of our commitment to an open and transparent recruitment process, and because we will be abiding by the requirements of the governance code on public appointments, it is unnecessary and I will resist it.
I will now turn to amendments 38 to 42, which seek to remove the term “person” and insert the term “board” in reference to the appointment of an independent reviewer of the eligibility verification measure, as set out in clause 75. I recognise the intent behind the points raised, but the amendments are unnecessary and I will resist them. It is probably useful to clarify that, legally, the term “person”, as referred to in the clause, can refer to an individual person, a body of people or a board, as per the Interpretation Act 1978. I therefore reassure the Committee that any reference to “person” in the Bill includes a body of persons, corporate or incorporated, that is a natural person, a legal person or, for example, a partnership.
I reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State will appoint the most appropriate and suitable independent oversight for the measure. That might be an individual expert, which is consistent with the approach taken for oversight of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, or it might be a group of individuals who form a board or committee. As the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments clearly sets out, Ministers
“should act solely in terms of the public interest”
when making appointments, and I can assure the Committee that we will do just that.
To offer further reassurance, I confirm that the appointment process for the independent person or body will be open, fair and transparent, adhering strictly to the governance code on public appointments, which ensures that all appointments are made based on merit, fairness and openness. The Government will of course notify the House of the appointment. I therefore resist these amendments.
I will now turn to clause 75. Independent oversight is one of several safeguards for the eligibility verification measure, and I remind the Committee of the others that we discussed on Thursday. First, we are initially pursuing the measure with just three benefits in scope. Others can be added by regulations, but not, in any circumstances, the state pension, which is specifically excluded from the Bill. Furthermore, limits on the data that can be collected are set out in the Bill. For instance, no transactional data or special category data can be shared. Finally, as we discussed at length on Thursday, a human decision maker will be in place to determine whether any fraud has been committed.
Clause 75 provides a vital safeguard for the eligibility verification power. By inserting proposed new sections 121DC and 121DD into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, it establishes a requirement for independent oversight of the power, to ensure accountability, compliance and effectiveness. We recognise the importance of safe and transparent delivery of the eligibility verification measure, which is why we are legislating to make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint the independent person to carry out annual reviews.
As per proposed new section 121DC(2), the person must prepare a report and submit it to the Secretary of State. And as per new subsection (3), the Secretary of State must then publish the report and lay a copy before Parliament. New subsection (4) outlines that the first review must relate to the first 12 months after the measure comes into force, and new subsection (5) outlines that subsequent reviews must relate to each subsequent period of 12 months thereafter. Those annual reviews and reports will ensure transparency in the use of the measure and its effectiveness.
To ensure that the eligibility verification measure is exercised in a responsible and effective manner, in accordance with the legal framework, new section 121DC further details what each review must consider during the review period. That includes compliance with the legislation and the code of practice, and actions taken by banks and other financial institutions in complying with eligibility verification notices. The review must also cover whether the power has been effective in identifying, or assisting in identifying, incorrect payments of the benefits covered during the review period. In new subsection (7), there is provision for the Government to bring forward regulations to provide relevant functions to the independent reviewer to enable them to perform their duties under the clause.
In order to ensure that the independent reviewer is able to fulfil their duties, clause 75 also provides a legal gateway for the Secretary of State to disclose information to the independent reviewer, or a person acting on the reviewer’s behalf, for the purposes of carrying out the review. That can be found in new section 121DD, which is inserted by clause 75. Data protection provisions in new sections 121DD(2) to (4) make it clear that such sharing must comply with data protection legislation and other restrictions on the disclosure of information.
In conclusion, the clause represents a key safeguard in relation to the new power and confirms a previous commitment to Parliament to establish oversight over it and ensure its proportionate and effective use. On that basis, I propose that clause 75 stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Smith
Apologies, Mr Western, because I probably should have spoken to clause 75 stand part when I made my earlier remarks—it was just 9.20 am. Thank you for letting me speak now.
As we have discussed, clause 75 amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992, adding provisions for a review of the powers given through clause 74, which we debated last week. The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out the reviews, and a report must be submitted, published and laid before Parliament. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances that, by definition, a “person” could be a body, a board or a panel. That has precluded quite a lot of the notes I was going to read out this morning, but it is good to hear that that definition is included in the Interpretation Act 1978.
However, it is worth again putting on record some of the evidence that we heard, and the fact that that definition caught the attention of some of those who gave evidence during our initial sittings. Some experts were concerned to have the eligibility verification reviewed by, potentially, a panel to ensure that it was both sustainable and auditable and that an unbiased viewpoint could be presented. Dr Kassem said:
“Personally, I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.” ––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 13, Q15.]
Clearly, the Minister addressed that in his comments, but it does raise the question of what volume of work he envisages the independent person, panel or body having to assess. I appreciate that that could well be a “How long is a piece of string?” exercise at this point, but does it have any bearing on whether the Secretary of State will appoint one person or several people at the point at which this body is instituted? I ask that question to reflect the concerns about volume, speed and the ability to get the review produced in the right amount of time, and also to provide clarification to those who gave evidence.
Finally, we heard from Helena Wood that she had concerns that the Bill is a “very blunt instrument”, specifically in relation to its powers on eligibility verification. What consideration has the Minister given to those comments, especially about the proportionality and reasonableness of the measures in the Bill, to ensure that it does not get used as the blunt tool it appears to be? What more information about how the powers in the clause are to be exercised will be set out in the code of practice in due course?
Andrew Western
I acknowledge what the hon. Lady said about the evidence we heard and the preference for a board. If I am being absolutely transparent with the Committee—as I would be expected to be—I am entirely open-minded at this point about where we may end up. I do not have a person, body or group in mind. That is why I hope that the open and transparent process yields the best possible result in terms of the qualifications and specialisms of the individual or individuals who may ultimately be appointed. A range of skills would be of use to us—specialisms in data and human rights, and in welfare, obviously—so I am open-minded about where we end up in relation to who takes this work forward for us.
On the question as to the volume of work, the hon. Lady is correct that it is something of a “How long is a piece of string?” question. However, in terms of the bare essentials, the requirement is to produce an annual report to be laid before Parliament, so I would not expect the volume of work to be at the extreme end in terms of how onerous it would be.
Steve Darling
I am pleased to have had the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Entry, search and seizure in England and Wales
Andrew Western
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 76, page 43, line 38, leave out from “the individual” to end of line 1 on page 44 and insert
“is an official of a government department and—”.
This amendment clarifies that to be an authorised investigator an individual must be an official of a government department and be of the specified grade.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 77 stand part.
Government amendments 4, 5 and 33.
Schedule 4.
Clause 78 stand part.
New clause 3—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.
(2) The powers to be applied must include—
(a) the power of arrest;
(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”
Andrew Western
Clause 76 will insert a new section 109D to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to make provision for specialist DWP staff to apply to the courts for a warrant to enter a premises for the purposes of search and seizure. That is one of the five overarching powers that we are looking at in the Bill. It is a new power for the Department, but not uncommon across Government more broadly. These actions may be exercised only by an authorised investigator—an individual who has received authorisation from the Secretary of State and completed industry standard training.
As drafted, subsection (6) of proposed new section 109D could be interpreted as requiring an authorised investigator to be either an official of a Government Department or of at least higher executive officer grade. Amendment 34 makes it explicit that an authorised investigator must be both an official of a Government Department and an HEO, for the purpose of these powers in England and Wales. That is an important clarification and is in line with our original policy intent. I trust that the amendment is welcome, as it ensures that there are clear criteria in place and that only those who hold the right office and grade may be authorised to exercise the powers in clause 76 and schedule 4.
I turn to clause 76 itself, and the substance of the powers of entry, search and seizure for the DWP. The clause will insert new section 109D and schedule 3ZC into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which will provide DWP-authorised investigators with the power to apply for warrants, enter a premises, search it and seize items. It will also give authorised investigators power to apply for an order to gain access to certain types of materials that refer to business or personal records, defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as “excluded material” under section 11 or “special procedure material” under section 14.
The ability to undertake this activity will play a crucial role in gathering and securing evidence to bring serious and organised benefit fraudsters to justice. Currently, DWP investigators must rely on the police to undertake all this activity—securing the warrant from the court and exercising it—on their behalf. The clause changes that. It means that DWP-authorised investigators will be able to apply directly to a court for a warrant to enable them to enter, search and seize items from premises, but only during a serious and organised criminal investigation.
I can assure the Committee that DWP-authorised investigators will be required to meet the same legal requirements when submitting an application as the police. That includes undertaking all activities in compliance with the Home Office code of practice on entry, search and seizure. In addition, independent inspections of the DWP’s use of the power may be conducted by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services in England and Wales or by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. That is addressed in clause 87, which we will consider later, and will be in addition to the internal safeguards, including clear processes for signing off warrants, that the DWP will have in place to ensure that the powers are used appropriately, safely and lawfully.
Clause 77 will insert new section 109E and new schedule 3ZD into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and will provide equivalent entry, search and seizure powers for DWP-authorised investigators carrying out investigations of serious and organised fraud in Scotland. The powers enabling entry, search and seizure in England and Wales are primarily provided by PACE, and that is addressed in clause 76; however, there is no equivalent Act in Scottish law to provide the basis for these powers, so the powers in relation to Scotland are set out in this Bill. New schedule 3ZD to the 1992 Act —inserted by clause 77 and schedule 4 to the Bill—provides the basis for applying for a warrant for entry, search and seizure and exercising that warrant in Scotland. Those powers are similar to those set out in clause 76 and schedule 4 for England and Wales.
Clause 77 enables a DWP-authorised investigator to apply for and execute a warrant or a production order—a court-authorised directive requiring an individual to promptly disclose information relevant to a criminal investigation—in Scotland. It also provides for the DWP to search premises and seize items when that action is authorised by a sheriff in Scotland. The clause is intended to achieve parity between the nations, and I commend it to the Committee.
Government amendments 4 and 5 are minor and technical and aim to deliver the original policy intent of schedule 4, relating to entry, search and seizure for the DWP in Scotland. Their effect is to provide that where an authorised investigator who is exercising a search warrant identifies materials or items that have a bearing on any offence under investigation, they should seize them only if taking a copy or record, such as a photograph, is deemed to be not appropriate. That will ensure that items or materials are seized only where necessary, and will apply the same safeguard in Scotland as is currently the case in England and Wales.
As the Bill is drafted, the requirement to take a copy where possible, rather than seizing something, would apply only to an item and not to material. The amendments will deliver the original policy intent, which was not to differentiate. They will also ensure that no seizure, copies or records should be made where an item or material is subject to legal privilege or defined as “excluded” or “special procedure” material. I hope that my explanation assures Members that the amendments are minor and technical, and will ensure that schedule 4 works correctly and is in line with the existing approach taken by the police. I commend Government amendments 4 and 5 to the Committee.
Government amendment 33, which is very similar to Government amendment 34, makes it clear that an authorised investigator must be both an official of a Government Department and of HEO grade, but this time in relation to the use of these powers in Scotland, under schedule 3ZD, which is set out in schedule 4 to the Bill. I trust that the amendment will be welcomed like amendment 34.
Schedule 4 outlines modifications to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for entry, search and seizure operations in England and Wales, and includes equivalent legislation for operations that take place in Scotland. The schedule sets out the essential modifications and practical details needed for DWP-authorised investigators to fully execute powers of entry, search and seizure. It outlines new schedule 3ZC to be inserted into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to modify certain provisions in PACE to provide the relevant policing powers to DWP-authorised investigators in England and Wales.
The schedule sets out the minimum grade required to be an authorised investigator, which is the minimum civil service equivalent of a police constable. The DWP will require 250 authorised investigators to be trained to industry standards, and they will be subject to internal management checks. The schedule also restricts the use of the powers so that they are exercisable only for the purpose of investigating a DWP offence, as defined in clause 84 of the Bill. It permits others to accompany an authorised investigator on to the premises named in the warrant and limits a DWP-authorised investigator’s authority so that they can conduct searches only of “material” and not of people. The schedule also makes technical modifications to PACE, to allow the DWP to carry out entry, search and seizure activity in the same way as the police.
Schedule 4 also outlines new schedule 3ZD to the 1992 Act, which makes provision for entry, search and seizure in Scotland. As far as possible, this replicates the approach taken in England and Wales, except where an alternative approach is needed to account for the different legal system in Scotland. The primary differences between schedule 3ZC and 3ZD are the process that must be followed when executing a warrant in Scotland, which includes providing a copy of the warrant to persons on the premises; the process for issuing receipts for items seized; the legal requirements for making applications for Scottish production orders and Scottish warrants for special procedure material.
Clause 78 replicates the approach taken in legislation governing police actions in respect of the Crown and Crown premises. It sets out how the law applies in the unlikely event that the DWP needs to obtain a warrant to enter Crown premises. It provides for a DWP-authorised investigator to apply for a warrant to search the locker of a suspect who works in, for example, a Government Department, but it prohibits the use of these powers in the interests of national security once the Secretary of State has certified that this is the case, and with regard to any private estates belonging to His Majesty and the Houses of Parliament. The package of measures in the Bill will leave very few places for organised criminals and the gangs who attack the DWP to conceal the evidence of their crimes, but clause 78 keeps us in line with other similar legislation.
Rebecca Smith
The DWP has fewer powers than other organisations, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which are tasked with investigating economic crime. We know that it does not have the power to arrest or to conduct search and seizure. Clause 76 will allows DWP-authorised investigators to apply for and execute a court warrant with or without police involvement in England and Wales. The aim is to help the DWP investigate and disrupt serious and organised fraud by giving investigators the power to make searches and seizures. That will allow them to deal with, for example, cases where universal credit claims are made using false identity documents.
We in the official Opposition want the Bill to work and the DWP to be able to successfully identify and tackle benefits fraud. DWP estimates of fraud and error in the welfare system exceeded £8 billion in each financial year from 2020-21 to 2023-24, with a combined total of £35 billion overpaid. For the financial year 2023-24, the DWP’s central estimate is that benefit overpayments totalled £9.7 billion, which is 3.7% of all benefit expenditure. Of that overpayment figure, £7.4 billion, or 76%, was due to fraud, £1.6 billion, or 16%, was due to claimant error, and £0.8 billion, or 8%, was due to official error, or 8%. It is clear that fraud costs the DWP the most, yet we worry that the Bill will be more effective at tackling error than fraud. We therefore support the powers in clause 76 to tackle fraud.
Steve Darling
The power to seize items, down in the weeds of an investigation, is essential to ensuring that we hold the right people to account. However, I am alive to the fact that seized items are often kept for a long time. Our mobile phones often contain our whole lives. Not that long ago, a resident in Torbay who was accused of a criminal offence and was under investigation had his mobile phone seized by Devon and Cornwall police for a very long time—a matter of months. What assurance can the Minister give that when the power of seizure is used—particularly when it is used to seize a mobile phone—items will be returned in a timely manner? What timescale does he plan to set for civil servants to return such items?
Andrew Western
Let me begin with some of the questions from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon. Her comments setting out the challenge and her commitment to wanting the Bill to work are incredibly welcome. She is right to set out the scale of the challenge. That is why we are taking the powers that we are proposing.
On whether the requests and the use of the powers of search and seizure will be reserved to members of our staff working in serious and organised crime only, the answer is yes. On the level of seniority of team members executing those powers, it is HEO-grade officers that do that. In terms of salary equivalent, salary can be quite a crude comparison for a number of reasons. Police officers undertake shift work and an element of their salaries is higher as a result. Obviously, as members of the emergency services, there is a level of risk to their work. The National Crime Agency suggests that an HEO grade is the equivalent of a police sergeant, although in salary terms, it is probably more akin to a police constable.
On training, they will receive the industry standard training, equivalent to the training that police receive in this area. On safeguards more broadly, for the power in the Bill, a lot of the safeguards in place relate to the fact that a warrant is granted by a judge. There is always that specialist person making a determination in terms of appropriateness and proportionality. All warrant applications and all warrants would be exercised in compliance with the Home Office code of practice for entry, search and seizure. That is specifically limited to serious and organised crime only—that is multiple people working together to commit complex fraud, typically resulting in higher value overpayments.
As I said, everybody executing this power would be of HEO grade. They would have had the industry standard training. Investigations will also be subject to independent inspections, which will report on the DWP’s use of the powers, and any serious complaints can be reported to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. A range of safeguards is built into the proposals.
If I may, I will come later to the question from the hon. Member for Torbay about the return of information. There are specific provisions to enable us to keep items for as long as is needed, but there is a desire to return things as soon as possible. Elsewhere in the Bill, we speak to the specific powers that would be required were we wanting to go further and not return an item. There is a commitment to return, unless specific powers are required to prevent further criminality based on evidence found on phones. I cannot give a specific timeline—something would be kept for the length of time necessary for the purposes of the investigation—but I hear the point, particularly about mobile phones.
I stress again that this is about serious and organised crime. If I think of some of the cases I have seen—Operation Volcanic, for example—we are talking about going into buildings where there are several dozen, if not hundreds, of pay-as-you-go mobile phones set up expressly for the purposes of fraudulent activity and criminality. I would perhaps be less sympathetic to the swift return of those phones, and I hope the hon. Gentleman understands why.
I turn to new clause 3. I appreciate the explanation of the rationale from the hon. Member for South West Devon, but I do not share her view. I gave great consideration to the question of whether to take powers of arrest when first having discussions about the scope and shape of the Bill. The Bill enables trained DWP investigators to apply for a search warrant to enter a premises, search it and seize items or material that may have a bearing on the DWP case being investigated. Put bluntly, it gives us the right tools to do the job effectively.
Crucially, it enhances police efficiency by allowing the DWP to handle warrant applications and carry out search and seizure activity, freeing the police from those administrative and investigative tasks that they currently undertake for the DWP. No longer will DWP investigators always need to rely on the police for search warrants, take up police time briefing them on the specifics of the warrant applications or always be restricted to simply advising the police as to what items may be relevant during a search, only for them to then be seized by the police and later transferred to the DWP.
On efficiency, we are taking the powers we need to smarten up our processes. The current process is clearly imperfect. It is inefficient for both the DWP and the police, as well as burdensome in terms of resource, and the Bill resolves that situation. There is a clear rationale for the powers set out in the Bill, but the same cannot be said for the amendment.
To close, I will explain why it is not appropriate for the DWP to undertake arrests as well. I am concerned about the safety impacts; the police have expertise that equips them to carry out arrests. The policy intent is to facilitate more effective investigations and smoother administration, striking the right balance between activities undertaken by the DWP and the police. A power to arrest would require the DWP to take on roles that go beyond those that are administrative and evidence gathering in nature.
Not only that, but it is common for a serious organised DWP offence to involve other types of serious and organised crimes. As a result, a suspect is likely to be involved in wider criminality than just a DWP related offence, such as firearms, drugs or being involved in people trafficking. It makes sense that the police would conduct the arrest in such a situation and, after that, DWP investigators could focus their time on searching the scene for relevant evidence related to the DWP offence.
In addition, for the DWP to be able to operate independently of the police would require the DWP, for example, to have appropriate vehicles for transporting an arrested person and custody suites for detaining them. Currently that is not the case and, to be clear, we are not moving in that direction. We do not operate extensively in that area and allocating resources there is unlikely to be efficient or make sense.
The powers in the Bill promote effective collaboration between the DWP and the police, bring some genuine efficiencies and allow each team to focus on its strengths, which is the right approach. This amendment would not serve the same purpose and it would add a layer of complexity to the DWP’s work that we are not equipped to deal with, either in terms of the expertise of our team or the equipment that we have. For this reason, I must resist new clause 3.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Social security fraud: search and seizure powers etc
Amendments made: 4, in schedule 4, page 91, line 28, after “item” insert “or material”.
This amendment clarifies that paragraph 2(3) of new Schedule 3ZD of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as inserted by Schedule 4 of the Bill) applies in relation to any item or material.
Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 91, line 31, after “item” insert “or material”.
This amendment clarifies that paragraph 2(4) of new Schedule 3ZD of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as inserted by Schedule 4 of the Bill) applies in relation to any item or material.
Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 93, line 32, leave out from “individual” to end of line 33 and insert
“is an official of a government department and—”.—(Andrew Western.)
This amendment clarifies that to be an authorised investigator an individual must be an official of a government department and be of the specified grade.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Offence of delay, obstruction etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
I am sure colleagues will be pleased to know that this speech will be brief.
Cases of serious and organised fraud against the DWP can amount to millions of pounds being stolen from the taxpayer. Clause 79 provides for consequences when those suspected of serious and organised fraud intentionally attempt to delay or obstruct an investigation. A suspect can be prosecuted if they intentionally try to frustrate a DWP investigation, and if convicted, they can be fined up to £1,000. Without this important provision, DWP fraud investigations into serious and organised criminal attacks on the social security system could be wilfully manipulated by those suspected of carrying out the fraud, which would be an untenable situation.
Rebecca Smith
I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that I will also be brief.
It is an offence under section 111 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to intentionally delay or obstruct an authorised officer, and conviction for a failure to comply may result in a fine of up to £1,000. Clause 79 means that obstructing an authorised investigator will be treated in the same way as obstructing an authorised officer, which means that obstructing an authorised investigator will be a criminal offence carrying a fine of up to £1,000. We are happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Disposal of property
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
This clause gives the DWP a clear legal path to seek court approval to dispose of property that has come into its possession when executing a search warrant. In most cases, the seized items will be returned to their rightful owner as soon as they are no longer required by a criminal investigation. However, as I alluded to in responding to the hon. Member for Torbay, there are certain circumstances in which this may be either not possible or not desirable.
An order may be sought when a seized item does not belong to the suspect and where it is not possible to identify the rightful owner, where there is a high risk that returning the seized item means it could be used for the furtherance of crime or where information needs to be deleted before the item is returned to prevent a further offence. This will prevent the risk of, for instance, returning a seized smartphone that contains data relating to hijacked or stolen identities that may enable fraud and the distribution of information that could be used for criminal gain. With the increasing use of technology, it will be ever more critical to ensure this does not happen. This clause allows the DWP to act in the same way as the police.
To avoid the risk of incorrect disposal of seized items, applications for any action of this kind must be made to, and must be approved by, a court. In addition, there are restrictions on how quickly seized material can be disposed of. In all cases, six months must elapse from the approval of an application by a court before a seized item can be destroyed.
Finally, any person with an interest in an item can make an application to the court. This could be the DWP, the item’s rightful owner or the person from whom it was seized. The clause sets out specific criteria in relation to any challenges that may be brought and the procedures that apply. If an order has been given for the item to be destroyed, the order cannot be revoked. However, the timeframe for the item to be destroyed may be challenged.
This clause creates a legal and proportionate gateway for the DWP to deal with seized items appropriately. This ensures that the DWP can act in the same way as the police when concluding fraud investigations.
Rebecca Smith
Where DWP investigators seize items from a premises, they will generally be returned to the owner if they are no longer needed for an ongoing investigation. As we have heard, it may not be appropriate to return an item in certain cases, such as if the person from whom the item was taken is not the actual owner or if the owner cannot be traced. In some cases, there may be a risk that a seized item could be used for a criminal purpose if it were returned. We acknowledge that clause 80 gives the DWP a lawful basis for disposing of the items. Clause 80 stipulates that items cannot be destroyed until six months have passed from when the magistrate approved the application to destroy them. Why is six months the chosen timeframe, and what are the precedents for other evidence seized in criminal investigations?
We support the provision allowing someone with an interest in the item to request the court to alter an approved action in relation to the item. We believe that is sensible. Can the Minister give an example of the sort of scenario that might refer to, just for the benefit of the Committee? What will the timeframe be for such applications? Finally, how will interested parties be made aware of items they may wish to take court action over? I assume it will not be a police lost property office, but ultimately it is one of those questions of how someone will know that there is something in which they might have an interest.
Andrew Western
I will briefly answer those questions. The period of six months is the same as set out in the Police (Property) Act 1897. We want to ensure alignment where we can to make the process between the police and the DWP as seamless as possible, so that serious and organised fraudsters do not recognise any difference.
On the question of how someone will know if we were intending to destroy their items, the clause does not require the DWP to inform any relevant person of any intended action in relation to the seized item. That is commensurate with how the 1897 Act works for the police in similar circumstances, but anyone who has an interest in the seized goods will have the same access right as the Secretary of State to apply to a court for a particular course of action to be taken. That could include seeking an extension before the seized item is destroyed. In all cases, a notice to occupier information notice will be left at the property, which will provide information about the search, the items seized and relevant points of contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Clause 81 applies only to Scotland and amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to enable DWP-authorised investigators to seize an item from a premises and scrutinise it off site to determine its relevance to the investigation. This will apply in circumstances where it is challenging or even impossible to determine the relevance of an item to an investigation while on site. In some cases, large volumes of documents could be found that may comprise valuable evidence, but that will take a long time and need detailed scrutiny to assess. A locked electronic device may be found that could have evidence stored on it. This clause gives DWP-authorised investigators the ability to deal with those kinds of situations in the same way as the police by seizing items and taking them off site for sifting or further examination elsewhere. Without the authority granted by this clause, vital evidence could be missed, lost or even destroyed if left on site. In all instances, the DWP will seek to return seized items as soon as possible to the owner, where they are no longer needed or found to be irrelevant to an ongoing investigation. Those are the main provisions in clause 81, and I commend it to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 81 amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to deal with situations where authorised investigators cannot ascertain whether an item or material contains information relevant to that search, such as when dealing with large volumes of materials or files or electronic devices. That material therefore may need to be taken to be examined elsewhere, and we recognise that the clause allows for material to be seized and then sifted, rather than sifted and then seized. For that reason, we are happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I seek the Minister’s guidance as to how DWP officers, when they undertake these acts, will ensure that seize and sift will not be the standard modus operandi and that it is used only in appropriate cases. When will the Government publish a code of conduct? What guidance will be given? It might be tempting to undertake trawling operations for information rather than taking the spear-fishing approach that would garner the evidence more easily. I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that.
Andrew Western
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her support and to the hon. Member for Torbay for his questions. By way of reassurance, the DWP cannot just seize anything and everything from a place it has entered with a warrant; it can seize only items that are directly relevant to the investigation. Other oversight is built in, given the ability to make complaints to the IOPC and the oversight powers we are affording to HMICFRS, and people will be trained to the industry standard and so on, but fundamentally they must be able to demonstrate that a seizure is directly relevant to the investigation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Incidents etc in England and Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Clause 82 amends part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and will insert proposed new section 26H, which provides for the IOPC to investigate any serious complaints or serious harm related to the use of the powers of entry, search and seizure. There are multiple safeguards—including industry-standard training for all authorised investigators—to minimise the risk of the Bill’s entry, search and seizure powers being used incorrectly. I assure Members that the likelihood of a serious complaint, particularly anything that involves death or serious harm, is extremely unlikely. However, an effective and independent complaints process is essential when it comes to powers of this nature.
Whenever a search warrant is executed, information will be provided setting out how to raise a complaint and what to do in the unlikely event that the complaint is serious or involves death or serious harm. The clause aligns the DWP’s approach to serious complaints and incidents relating to entry, search and seizure with that of other bodies with similar powers, including the police. That is why we have agreed with the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner that they will investigate serious incidents that occur in Scotland related to the use of the powers of entry, search and seizure by the DWP under clause 83.
If a complaint is not of a serious nature, as defined in IOPC guidelines, it can still be raised via the existing departmental complaint procedures. It will be investigated internally, and if an individual is not happy with the complaint response, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed by a more senior manager. If an individual remains dissatisfied with the Department’s final response, they may escalate their concern to the independent case examiner.
Clause 83 amends articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013. It mirrors the provisions of clause 82, which applies to England and Wales, and provides for similar independent investigation arrangements for serious incidents in Scotland. I again reassure Members that robust safeguards will be in place, including investigators having comprehensive training, robust internal governance with clear processes for signing off warrants, and the external independent authorisation of all warrants by the courts.
In the very unlikely event that a fatality is associated with the DWP’s use of the powers, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner can be directed to investigate by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, which is Scotland’s public prosecution service and death-investigation authority. We expect that, in almost all cases, incidents relating to the DWP’s use of the powers will fall outside of the scope of being serious in their nature. In such cases, the Department’s existing complaint procedures will be used, as I set have out.
It is crucial to build trust in the Department, especially when serious incidents happen. The public must know that their concerns will be handled with importance and impartiality. Clauses 82 and 83 provide that assurance by establishing a transparent and accountable investigation process that is independent of the Department. Having outlined their main provisions, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 82 specifies that the Independent Office for Police Conduct—which oversees complaints, professional conduct matters and serious incidents involving the police and similar bodies in England and Wales—will handle serious complaints relating to the DWP’s use of the powers under proposed new section 109D in relation to DWP offences. That will be done through a regulation-making power, so will the Minister explain what modifications might be made to how the IOPC oversees complaints when its functions are extended to DWP investigators? How much additional funding does the Minister anticipate the IOPC will need to take on those functions?
Andrew Western
On the question of funding for the IOPC and the PIRC, we are in ongoing discussions with them about what the exact costs will be. We clearly do not expect the costs to be excessive because it is not a massive shift from the work they undertake already.
On the question of what modifications are required to the IOPC role, the regulations will set out how the functions will work for the DWP. It is important to remember that we envisage that the IOPC will look at cases only where there have been serious complaints and deaths, so we are not talking huge numbers.
There could be a range of ways in which people can refer. It may even be that we would self-refer if there has been a death. One of the principal reasons why I did not consider it prudent to take the power of arrest is that that minimises the likelihood of our finding ourselves in that position. Where arrests are undertaken, clearly the police will be on site with us and responsible for that.
I do not envisage the process for making the complaints to be set out explicitly in the code of practice, but clearly if someone contacted the Department and wanted to make a complaint of that nature about something very serious that was outside the scope of internal complaints—for instance, if there had been harm or death—we would immediately refer the person and the case to the IOPC. As I say, the costs are not expected to be excessive, but we would expect to meet them ourselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
DWP offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
The clause creates a new definition of “DWP offence”, expanding on the existing definition of “benefit offence” set out in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The DWP must have the power to respond to the different types of fraud we find. We know that, for example, the misuse of national insurance numbers can be a gateway to wider fraud. If criminals steal the identities of honest people and misuse their details to make false benefit claims, that is unacceptable and we need the power to act.
Fraud is not just contained to the most claimed benefits, like universal credit—as we saw with kickstart, grant payments intended to support people when they need extra help can also be abused—yet DWP investigative powers are limited when investigating other types of crime. By providing a new definition of a DWP offence, the clause ensures that fraudulent activity relating to grants, loans, national insurance numbers and other financial support issued by the DWP is explicitly captured in the law. It allows any offences linked to the payments to be met with firm action. The new definition works hand in hand with our enhanced investigation and entry, search and seizure powers in the Bill, thereby giving the DWP the ability to obtain critical evidence needed to prove or disprove allegations of fraud, in a fair and proportionate way.
The clause is about ensuring that every pound lost to fraud, and taken away from those who genuinely need support, is pursued with all the powers we have, whatever the nature of the payment may have been. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for outlining the plans around the clause, which would establish the definition of a “DWP offence” to allow any offence relating to a benefit payment, credit or grant that the DWP administers to be included under the new information-gathering powers. It would also include offences related to national insurance numbers.
We support the clause, which should hopefully allow DWP to gather information more holistically and lead to more successful prosecutions, but I have a couple of brief questions. What assessment has been made of the scale of prosecutions that could be made? What assessment has been made of the cost of exercising the new power?
Andrew Western
I thank the hon. Lady for her support and her questions. I would not want to put a specific number on the prosecutions—as I said, we have not had the powers to investigate these crimes in full before—but we think that by bringing these areas it into scope not only will we find significant offences that we need to clamp down on but there will be a deterrent effect. Having both levers together makes this an important tool to have in our arsenal.
On the costs, they would be broadly similar to those we already bear for investigating any other type of offence. They would not be materially different in terms of the implications for our budget.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Disclosure of information etc: interaction with external constraints
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
The clause is an important safeguard for the DWP’s information-gathering powers. It sets out the kinds of information that a DWP-authorised officer cannot compel from an information holder. The exemptions are similar to those set out in the Social Security Assistance (Investigation of Offences) (Scotland) Regulations 2020. They are designed to prevent information from being obtained that is particularly sensitive, or if it would be inappropriate for the DWP to do so. For instance, as with the existing legislation, exemptions apply to legally privileged material and to information that could lead to the self-incrimination of the person or their spouse or civil partners.
In addition, the clause sets out exemptions for excluded material and certain special procedure material, as defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This includes material such as medical records, records about counselling that an individual may have received, and journalistic material. The clause also prevents information notices from being issued for personal information about the use of organisations that provide free advice and advocacy services—including, for example, charities that provide refuge from abuse—thereby ensuring that vulnerable people can seek help without fear that their information will be disclosed.
Any use of the powers must be compliant with obligations set out in data protection legislation, which requires that personal data is kept secure and is not misused. The powers cannot be used to obtain communications data. If the DWP seeks communications data as part of its investigation, it must follow the authorisations and processes under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Further detail on the safeguards will be in our code of practice, which will be consulted on before being laid before Parliament, and to which all authorised officers will be required to adhere. Having outlined the main provisions of clause 85, I commend it to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 85 sets out that DWP’s actions under part 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 must comply with existing laws relating to the use of data and with the existing protections to protect confidential data and data prohibited under the Investigatory Powers Act. I have a brief question before I move on to subsection (8). Does the Minister envisage that clause 85 will provide much practical constraint on how the DWP is able to share information?
Subsection (8) states:
“A person who provides services on a not for profit basis in relation to social security, housing (including the provision of temporary accommodation) or debt, may not be required under the provision to give personal data about the recipients of the services.”
I acknowledge what the Minister just said about the particularly vulnerable, who may be in refuges or places like that, but the provision feels quite broad, particularly in relation to debt recovery and support. Many organisations might have quite a lot of information that would be helpful to the DWP—I think particularly of, for example, Citizens Advice, which sees the records of quite of a lot of people. Why has that carve-out been included and what purpose does it serve, beyond protecting particularly vulnerable groups that we do not want to put in danger?
My other question is about whether the provision excludes local authorities, which often provide temporary accommodation, for example. Does the subsection mean that local authorities will not be part of the group that could be asked for information?
Andrew Western
First, I am not of the view that the protections overly constrain our ability to gather the information we need and execute fraud operations as effectively as possible. The provision significantly broadens the overarching information-gathering package, the number the organisations from which we can compel information and the nature of the information that we can receive, but it is important that we take the steps needed to rule out some of the obvious kinds of information that people would expect us to remove, such as medical records and journalistic material.
It will probably help if I clarify the matter of the special protection status for certain organisations—I apologise if I was not clear when I said this before. The clause does not exempt charities or any specific organisations; it exempts certain types of information, such as that from organisations that provide services free of charge in relation to social security, housing or debt. We can still ask them for information, but not in relation to the advice they have provided. The measure is therefore perhaps not as restrictive as it may seem. It is not that the organisations can never be asked for information; it is just that certain types of information, of the nature I outlined in my principal contribution, will be protected.
Local authorities are not exempt, and they will have a part to play in much of our investigatory work, as the hon. Member for South West Devon suggested.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Giving notices etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
The information-gathering powers set out under clause 72 will be amended to ensure that information can be compelled from third parties digitally. That is an important step forward for us. The updated information-gathering powers create a single, clear legal gateway so that the DWP can compel information from third parties, it is more straightforward to respond, and that information can be provided digitally.
The Department must ensure that provisions are in place so that, in the event of a failure of digital systems, investigations are not impacted. Therefore, under such rare circumstances, the DWP will retain the power to compel information in writing, as set out in clause 86 —[Interruption.] I think Jennie likes this one. The clause also confirms that the DWP giving an administrative penalty notice by post is sufficient to effect service, and also applies to the eligibility verification measure, enabling the DWP to issue a notice to financial institutions by post, if necessary.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 86 inserts the provision for the DWP to retain the ability to issue an information notice and receive relevant documents by post. The Minister will be pleased to hear that he has answered my questions. The only thing I would ask is: how often does he expect information notices to be issued digitally? I suppose the flip question is: are you expecting the system to work perfectly and the post option to be used very rarely? For example, with vulnerable and older groups, might the post option need to be used more broadly than digital in certain cases?
Andrew Western
Clearly, in individual cases, if someone were to request contact by post, we would want to bear that in mind, but without wishing, as the Minister for transformation, to sound over-confident about the digital capability of some of our systems, in my view we would need to use these powers extremely rarely. It would be digital by default, except in the instance of, for example, system failure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Independent review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Clause 87 introduces an important safeguard by providing that all the criminal investigation powers in the Bill are independently inspected. As the Committee would expect, the DWP will make every effort to ensure that its criminal investigations are carried out to the letter of the law—through effective training, internal guidance and, for our entry, search and seizure powers, independent authorisation by the courts. However, it would not be right for the Department to simply mark its own homework. That is why the clause provides for an independent person to be commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake inspections. This will ensure that there is a formal provision in place to establish that arrangement, and that it can be done in a way that is suitable for both the DWP and the independent person.
The independent person will be responsible for impartial inspection of the Department’s effectiveness, and compliance with relevant codes of practice and guidance in its criminal investigations. That aligns with other Government bodies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the National Crime Agency, which also use investigatory powers at different levels and are also subject to independent inspections.
I am pleased to say that the independent person the DWP intends to commission is His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services for matters relating to investigations in England and Wales, and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland for investigations in Scotland. Those well-established bodies are experts in conducting such inspections and independently assessing the use of criminal investigation powers. Their reports will be published and laid before Parliament, including any recommendations for improvements.
The clause ensures that the Department’s criminal investigations will be conducted with transparency and accountability, demonstrating its commitment to fairness and transparency when exercising its criminal powers.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 87 provides for DWP investigation activity to be inspected and evaluated by an independent person or body. The Secretary of State will be able to appoint someone to inspect DWP criminal investigations, and to provide written reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State, which must be published and laid before Parliament. That review will also consider the DWP’s compliance with the codes of practice, which we have not yet seen, as was much discussed in earlier sittings.
We welcome the transparency that clause 87 will bring to how the DWP is using these powers; however, unlike clause 75, the clause does not state how often reviews would have to be conducted. Is there a reason for that? The Secretary of State would give “directions” as to the period to be covered by each review, having first consulted the independent person. Can the Minister confirm how frequently the Secretary of State will ask the DWP investigation activity to be reported on, and will the independent person or body be able to carry out reviews on their own initiative or will they have to wait until directed to do so by the Secretary of State?
The Minister has already given the Committee an indication of who may be appointed to lead those reviews, and I assume the layout of the police and fire authorities relates to that particular question, so I will not restate that for the record, but can I also ask the Minister how quickly reviews are expected to be concluded once they have been initiated—referring back to the wording of clause 75? For these reviews to be meaningful, there must be a way for the DWP to learn lessons and improve practice, so how can the Minister reassure the Committee that there will be a process in place for that to happen?
The Chair
I remind Members to bob if they wish to catch my eye to speak, and to refrain from using the word “you”, which refers to me as opposed to the Minister.
John Milne
My colleague has just partially asked my question. While we broadly welcome the clause, we are concerned by the absence of the code of practice. Could the Minister give any indication of the kind of guidance that it might contain? Also, at what stage of the parliamentary process will there be scrutiny of it, given that it will not be during this Committee?
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I want to raise the comments made by the Information Commissioner in relation to the Bill and the updates to the previous Government’s proposals. I understood that they were more content with this Bill than the previous Bill. They were pleased that it brought data protection more tightly within the measures, and that it talked about data protection in a much more consistent way with the law. They said that the Bill more tightly scopes the types of information that can and cannot be shared. I understand that our debate on clause 85 covered some of those improvements.
However, at the end of their comments, the Information Commissioner talked about the review process, and said very clearly that they would like to explore with the Government the role that the Information Commissioner’s Office can play in assisting with the review process. This clause does not set out the different offices and people with whom the independent reviewer needs to liaise in preparing their report. I wondered whether Ministers could comment on their thoughts surrounding that process, and consider setting out in the code of practice or further guidance how the independent reviewer might engage properly with data protection in their review.
Andrew Western
There were a number of questions there—I was scribbling at pace—so if I miss anything, please intervene. In terms of when and how often investigations will happen, it is expected that the period for each review will be set and carried out in mutual agreement with each of the bodies. On whether they can ask to undertake a review, it would need to be in consultation with the Secretary of State, but it is fair to say we would be doing ourselves no favours by refusing to bear their request in mind. Likewise, on timescales, it is all in collaboration with the Secretary of State.
On when we can expect to see the codes of practice, for search and seizure the Home Office’s existing codes of practice will apply, but for information-gathering powers it will be the updated code of practice, which will be consulted on and laid in Parliament before being used. We anticipate that new codes of practice will be available before Committee stage in the House of Lords.
In relation to the response to inspections and how we would learn from them, once the independent body has produced its report the Secretary of State must publish it and lay it before Parliament. Although no legal obligation is placed on the Secretary of State to implement recommendations, we will respond to all recommendations promptly and, as a learning organisation, always look to make continuous improvements.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for answering those questions. The lack of stipulation on timeframe, frequency and so on begs the question of why this provision is in the Bill. Ultimately, what will trigger a review? That is the bit we probably have not touched on. Who will say to the Secretary of State, who no doubt is an incredibly busy woman, “This is what we need to be doing at this time”? I appreciate that it would be her officials, but this provision is buried in the middle of the Bill and there is no stipulation that a review has to happen after a 12-month period, every six months or whatever. How do we ensure that this transparency, which we welcome, will actually take place, and that the benefits of having a review come to pass?
Andrew Western
That is a reasonable question. Clearly, if there are incidents such as those that would bring into scope the IOPC powers, that would attract significant attention and it would be obvious and—dare I say it?—necessary for the Secretary of State to refer there. In relation to timescales and so on, much of that would depend on what has happened in a period. Were we to say that this was something that will be done every year or every other year and then something happened immediately, we would lack the flexibility to utilise the powers in the agile way we hope to do so. I appreciate that it may appear vague when compared with some powers that we have previously discussed, but that is so we can respond to events, rather than seek to dodge the use of the power.
Clearly, to an extent we will always work in collaboration. As I say, I would not intend at any point to resist a request from HMICFRS or any other body to look into work that we had undertaken, in particular in response to anything that may be considered controversial, not least because search and seizure powers are totally new for the DWP. We need to land them appropriately and build trust that we are able to execute the warrant powers properly.
The Information Commissioner’s comments related primarily to the eligibility verification measures, as they pertain to a direct comparison to the third-party data powers in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Obviously, the Information Commissioner has fairly wide-ranging powers to involve himself in any investigations. It is not something that we would look to resist. I think the channels are already in place for him to engage wherever he feels that it is appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Enforcement of non-benefit payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Clause 88 sets out the details of how an overpayment of a non-benefit payment, such as under the kickstart scheme that was used after the pandemic, will be made recoverable. This is necessary if we are to use the administrative penalty in connection with such cases to enable us to improve fairness, allowing the Department to address fraud wherever it occurs in the welfare system. As the Bill specifically seeks to extend the use of the administrative penalty—a penalty that is considered only after a criminal investigation of a suspicion of fraud—we are specifically extending the recovery of overpayments to cases of fraud against a non-benefit payment.
This means that, before we can recover overpayments of non-benefit payments, the DWP will need to have completed a thorough criminal investigation into a suspicion of fraud and either an administrative penalty is accepted or there is a court conviction. Once that has happened, the process for recovery of non-benefit overpayments will be the same as the long-established processes for social security overpayments. As with social security overpayments, a notice must be sent to the person who received the non-benefit overpayment. The notice sets the right to challenge the overpayment decision.
The overpayment decision can be challenged first by requesting a review by the Secretary of State, and if the decision is maintained, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Individuals have one month to apply for a review and one month after the notification of the outcome of the review to appeal, as outlined in proposed new subsections 71ZK(2) and 71ZK(6). These time limits are the same as those for challenging benefit overpayment decisions. If the decision is not disputed or is upheld following a review or appeal, the non-benefit overpayment becomes recoverable in the same way as social security overpayments.
Clause 88 is fundamental. It ensures that there is fairness in the DWP’s response to fraud, meaning our investigators and decision makers treat cases of fraud against any DWP payment in the same equitable way.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 88 sets out the mechanism for the recovery of non-benefit payments. This applies when a person misrepresents or fails to disclose a material fact, and as a consequence they or another person receives a non-benefit payment, or an amount of a non-benefit payment, that they would not otherwise have received. Subsection (2) provides a power to recover the overpayment.
Clause 88 also sets out what the Secretary of State must do before an overpayment can be recovered. This includes providing an overpayment notice, the detail that must be included in that notice, and that the person must have had the opportunity to challenge the overpayment. The Secretary of State can issue an overpayment notice only if the person has been convicted of an offence set out in the legislation, or if it appears possible to institute proceedings against a person for an offence. The only grounds to appeal a notice are if there has been no overpayment of a non-benefit payment or if the amount stated in the notice is not correct. Any appeal must be made before the end of the period of one month, beginning the day after the day on which a person was given the notice.
This question has probably been answered in an earlier debate, but I will ask it anyway to get it on the record: will the notices be sent in the post or electronically? That links back to our debate on clause 86; how the Government ensure that the notices get to the right people is going to be particularly important. Finally, why is there no ability to extend the one-month period, and on what basis was one month decided?
Steve Darling
I just want some assurance on how it was decided that one month was long enough. For my sins, I served the people of Torbay in elected of office for 30 years before getting elected to Parliament. I am alive to the fact that some people have chaotic lives. I am only too aware of how sometimes people turn up to the citizens advice bureau with a couple of carrier bags full of unopened envelopes because due to their mental health challenges the only way they are able to deal with their world is by putting their head in the sand, sadly.
I wanted an assurance on whether there was a level of flexibility. It appears from the clause that there is a drop-dead proposal here. What flexibility is proposed? I look forward to hearing the Minister speak about those people who are perhaps more vulnerable than the rest of us.
Rebecca Smith
I was hasty in putting down my notes and I realised I left out a bit, so thank you for humouring me, Mr Western. Clause 88 also sets out that there is a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against the notice, unless it has been revoked on review. We welcome the ability to appeal to the first-tier tribunal, but can I ask the Minister whether any amounts recoverable will be paused during the appeal process? Again, there is only one month to appeal to the first-tier tribunal, so can he explain on what benefit this timeframe was chosen?
Andrew Western
On whether notices will be sent in the post, it will be a mixture, as in the case for benefits rather than grants. The means of communication may be electronic or by post—there is always a blend. When we follow up in instances where debt recovery is required, we always use a range of mechanisms, such as telephone, digital and post, to attempt to get hold of somebody when we need to.
On the question from the hon. Members for South West Devon and for Torbay regarding how we came up with the one-month period either side of the appeal, that is the existing practice in the case of benefits, and we feel that it is therefore appropriate for non-benefit grants. To give some assurance on flexibility and vulnerability, the characteristics of claimants that might make them vulnerable, such as mental health difficulties, disabilities and other mitigating circumstances, will always be factored in by the decision maker when deciding whether to opt for an administrative penalty in the first place. At present, that happens in the case of benefits, and we would be extending that practice to grants and other non-benefit issues.
If the customer is suspected of being vulnerable at any stage of the investigation, the team leader or higher-investigations leader, in consultation with the investigator, will decide on the appropriate next steps. On the question of the timeliness of recovery, recovery will not start before an appeal was made. If there is an appeal, there will have been no recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—
“(a) the liable person agrees, or
(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and appropriate.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. The amendment covers direct deduction orders relating to social security payment debt of individuals who are no longer on benefits and not employed within the pay-as-you-earn system, as well as the use of powers to disqualify debtors from driving—a power I oppose, and we will debate that when we come to schedule 6.
The clause introduces the power for the Department for Work and Pensions to recover funds directly from a person’s bank account without a court warrant. The Secretary of State may make a direct deduction order in respect of a recoverable amount, where the debtor is no longer on benefits and is not employed within the PAYE system. As I understand it, the powers apply to all benefits under sections 71 to 78 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, including universal credit, and employment and support allowance. The powers apply to not only overpayments caused by deliberately fraudulent behaviour, but negligent oversight, incorrect statements and failure to disclose information. A DDO may be issued in relation to a joint account, if that is the only account that the debtor has.
The amendment would replace the conditions for such powers under proposed new section 80A(5) of the 1992 Act and would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees that the payment is due, or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and appropriate. The language and wording almost exactly mirrors that in clause 12, on page 9 of the Bill, which provides that protection for debtors to public authorities. If the likes of potential covid fraudsters and corrupt company directors get the protection of a court or tribunal decision, it is difficult to understand why a benefit recipient should not get the same.
It is worth noting that we already have powers to address the scenario where a debtor is no longer on benefits and not in PAYE employment. In such cases, the DWP can recover overpayments through county court enforcement proceedings. I am aware that the DWP argues that the county court method of enforcement is slow and resource-intensive. However, that is not a good reason to jettison judicial oversight from a process that allows the Government to take money directly from individuals’ bank accounts.
My amendment 7 seeks to address the concern that those powers hand an extraordinary amount of discretion to the Secretary of State, as there is no threshold to determine what constitutes hardship or what would be fair in all the circumstances. Furthermore, as far as I can see, no floor is defined for the amount of money that must be left in the debtor’s bank account.
I understand that the DWP maintains that the power is like those used by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, but that is not comparing like with like. Child maintenance is money owed—already defined to be affordable—by one parent to ensure provision for their dependant who does not live with them. That differs from an individual claiming money from the social security system who has been overpaid, potentially through no fault or a simple mistake of their own, where restitution may be extremely difficult to manage fairly and affordably.
Furthermore, I understand that HMRC powers have safeguards: before the powers are exercised, debtors must receive a face-to-face visit from an HMRC agent; and HMRC must retain at least £5,000 across the debtor’s accounts. By contrast, the Bill leaves those protections to the DWP’s discretion, based on the debtor’s representations and covertly obtained bank statements.
The amendment is also needed because the direct deduction powers as drafted would not be powers of last resort. For example, there is no requirement for the minimum number of times a liable person has failed to engage with the DWP before the powers can be exercised; there is no definition of whether someone has been given a reasonable opportunity to settle the debt; and there is no requirement for an in-person visit from the DWP. Such safeguards matter, because benefit recipients may not be engaging due to incapacity, illness, mental health problems or other genuine reasons. If those circumstances are ongoing, this will be an ineffective deterrent to force people to engage and repay their debts.
The amendment would mirror protections in part 1 of the Bill by limiting the availability of direct deduction order powers to cases where the debt is accepted, either by the debtor or by judicial determination. That would prevent the DWP from lowering the legal threshold at which funds can be removed directly from an individual’s bank account. I hope that we will come back to this issue at a later stage, as I really do want some action on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Jeremy. Amendment 7 would introduce a new requirement for the direct recovery from account power, restricting its use to cases where the debtor agrees or where a court or tribunal determines that the exercise of the power is necessary and appropriate. I am not clear whether the amendment would do exactly what the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion intends, which I believe is to place the restriction on all the new DWP recovery powers proposed in the Bill, but I will address the amendment as I think it was intended.
Although I share the view that there should be protections in place to ensure that the direct recovery power is used proportionately and appropriately, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. In my view, the Bill already contains sufficient safeguards. The amendment would also introduce unnecessary burdens for courts and tribunals, create avoidable inefficiencies and, ultimately, reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money that the power would bring back into the public purse.
The Department has long-standing powers under sections 71 and 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to recover public money wrongly paid in excess of entitlement. Those provisions include a strong framework, including rights of reconsideration and appeal against the overpayment decision. The DWP already has powers to recover such overpayments through deduction from benefits and PAYE wages under sections 71, 71ZC and 71ZD of the 1992 Act.
The power in the clause is aimed at recovering taxpayers’ money owed by debtors who persistently evade repayment and refuse to engage with the DWP to agree affordable repayment terms, even though they have the means to do so. It is highly unlikely that those debtors, who, until this point in the debt recovery process, have ignored all reasonable requests by the DWP to work with it to agree repayment terms, would suddenly willingly agree to the DWP recovering the money they owe directly from their bank account. It is therefore highly likely that, under the amendment, the DWP would be required to seek a determination from the court or tribunal that a direct deduction order is necessary and appropriate.
The DWP can already seek lump sum recovery from a debtor’s bank account through the courts by applying for a third-party debt order. The very rationale for introducing this power is to recover more than £500 million of public money over the next five years without using court time unnecessarily. The amendment would create entirely avoidable inefficiencies.
The Bill already makes sufficient provision for a debtor to challenge a direct deduction order if they do not agree with it, first through the right to make representations concerning the terms of the order prior to any deductions being made and, following that, through a right of appeal to the tribunal. That is in addition to the debtor’s existing mandatory reconsideration and appeal rights concerning the decision that there is a recoverable overpayment that must be repaid.
In addition to those safeguards, the Bill includes sufficient provisions to ensure that the power is used appropriately and proportionately. Specifically, it provides that it is a last-resort power that can be used only if recovery is not reasonably possible by deductions from benefit or PAYE earnings. The debtor can avoid the power entirely at any point by working with the DWP to agree affordable and sustainable repayment terms.
Separately, the disqualification from driving power can be exercised only at the discretion of the court. Again, that provision includes necessity and proportionality considerations by requiring disqualification to be suspended provided that the debtor makes the payments ordered by the court, and ensuring that an order cannot be made if the court considers that the debtor has an essential need for a licence.
Lastly, the amendment would be likely to reduce the expected deterrent impact of the direct deduction power. Although the DWP will take the appropriate action, in line with legislation, to address debtors who persistently evade repayment of taxpayers’ money when they have the financial means to repay, the power is expected to encourage debtors to agree affordable and sustainable repayment with the DWP without the need to proceed with an order.
Making such an amendment would lessen the power’s effectiveness, meaning that the DWP would have to take this action more frequently than envisaged and potentially subject debtors to court proceedings where the DWP would not have as the Bill is currently drafted. I hope—but I suspect possibly not—that I have reassured the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Bill contains sufficient provisions and safeguards.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Is it fair to say, for the reasons that the Minister outlined on the removal of the deterrent, that this amendment would not only assist some who seek to commit fraud but cost the DWP in its internal legal responsibilities and duties, as well in what it has to contribute to the court process to pay for what the amendment would require, in the sum of tens of millions of pounds?
Andrew Western
I would not put a specific value on it, but my hon. Friend may well be right with the sort of figures that he suggests. Yes, there would be additional costs from the preparation in advance of court appearances, as well as the administrative costs of applying to the court itself. I think we would bear a significant burden, were we to agree to this amendment. Having outlined my reasons, I will resist amendment 7.
Clause 89 inserts proposed new section 80A into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and it sets out which debts can be recovered by the new DWP recovery powers introduced in part 2 of the Bill. The new recovery powers are, firstly, the power to recover from bank accounts via direct deduction orders and, secondly, the power to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence.
The introduction of this clause ensures that the DWP can apply the new recovery powers to relevant social security debts. The clause is crucial to ensure that the new recovery powers in clauses 90 and 91 are used proportionately, appropriately and as intended by making them a power of last resort. By that, I mean that the DWP can use the new powers only after a debtor has been given all reasonable opportunities to repay the money owed, and only where recovery by existing powers is not reasonably possible.
The DWP debt stock stands at over £9 billion. As set out in the impact assessment, there is approximately £1.7 billion of off-benefit debt where individuals are able to avoid repayment, as the DWP is currently unable to recover effectively and efficiently in these cases. The Department’s current recovery powers are limited to deductions from benefits or PAYE earnings, meaning that those with other income streams and capital can choose not to repay their debt. The powers are vital to tackle those who repeatedly and persistently evade repayment, bringing £565 million of taxpayers’ money back into the public purse over the next five years.
These powers are expected to have a deterrent effect and to encourage many debtors to agree to repay without the powers being used. Debtors will be notified of the powers and their potential to be used to recover the money owed, should the individual continue to evade repayment. Let me be clear: where someone keeps money to which they are not entitled and repeatedly refuses to repay, the DWP will recover that money through these new powers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Jeremy. Clause 89 sets out how money is to be recovered. It specifies that the Secretary of State cannot recoup the money from someone’s bank account or disqualify them from driving until they have given the liable person a reasonable opportunity to settle their liability, notified the liable person that the Secretary of State may exercise the power to recover the amount, if the liability is not settled, and the Secretary of State must also have given the liable person a summary of how the power would be exercised.
We support the recovery of money that has been fraudulently claimed, and I believe it is pretty clear that we need to do it. However, when the money has been given out in error, particularly to vulnerable claimants, as has been mentioned this afternoon, will the Minister explain how those vulnerable claimants will be communicated with? How will the DWP ensure that funds can be managed in a way that is sustainable for the individual who has to make those repayments? I hope that would also reassure the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.
Green party amendment 7 would mean that the Secretary of State can exercise powers to recover amounts from a person only where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and appropriate. We in the official Opposition question why the Secretary of State should be prevented from recovering amounts that have been fraudulently claimed, unless the person in question agrees. The amendment seems to us to entirely frustrate the purpose of clause 89, which may well be its intent.
Siân Berry
Would the hon. Member care to comment on the fact that in clause 12, actual fraudsters are given the option to either have a court agree, or for them to agree to repay the amount?
Rebecca Smith
In terms of the Cabinet Office powers that we debated under part 1 of the Bill, I think we are not comparing apples and apples; we are comparing apples and pears. I am not the Government, so it is not my Bill, but ultimately we have heard the figures—indeed, I have shared the significant amount of fraud we are talking about—and if I were in the Minister’s shoes, I would say that the number of cases is not comparable. I continue with my view that this is different from the first part of the Bill.
I would be interested to hear an explanation from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about why she does not believe that money that has been fraudulently claimed from the DWP should be paid back. However, I have a question for the Minister off the back of amendment 7, which is similar to the question I asked him about clause 89. Regarding the concerns about the definition of hardship and vulnerability that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned, what might those levels be? I appreciate that that is potentially difficult to include in the Bill, but it would be interesting to know what is defined as a level of hardship that would have an impact on repayment, and how that would be determined.
Andrew Western
I will spend a moment setting out the process around the establishment of communications prior to deduction from a bank account and the affordability considerations that we undertake.
A person who is not paid under PAYE, or is in receipt of benefits, is identified and referred to the DWP’s debt management team initially to recover the debt. The debt management team makes multiple attempts, by letter or phone, to contact the person over at least four weeks to agree a voluntary repayment plan. If no contact can be made at that point, the case is referred to the DWP debt enforcement team, who will make at least four further separate attempts at contact, by letter or phone. That will include, at a minimum, two written notifications setting out the debt amounts owed, how the DWP may enforce the recovery of the debt, and with signposting to debt support to ensure that support is offered to vulnerable people.
If there is still no contact made, the person has repeatedly refused to engage and agree a voluntary plan. At that point, the DWP will check that the person has not made a new claim for benefit or entered PAYE employment, to check the person is suitable for this sort of recovery action. The person’s bank can then be contacted by the DWP to provide three months of bank statements from their accounts to check the affordability for any deduction, and to help the DWP work out the right amount, and frequency, of any deduction. The deductions must be line with caps in legislation. For regular deductions, that must not exceed 40% of the amounts credited into an account over the period for which bank statements are obtained. This will ensure that no one is forced to repay more than they can afford, so no one is pushed into financial hardship due to the recovery of debt.
Once that affordability assessment is complete, the DWP must write to the person to outline the debt that is being recovered—in other words, what has been overpaid and what is owed—the amount and frequency of the deduction, and how the deduction will be made, which in this case is from their bank account. The letter must outline the opportunities for the person to make representations to the DWP about any circumstances that the Department should consider before making the deduction, and it must also outline their right for the deduction decision to be reviewed. The person has a month to make representations or request a review. The letter must also outline appeal rights, including that if a person has made representations or asked for a review and the deduction order has been upheld, they may appeal the decision to the first-tier tribunal.
If there is no contact, one month after notifying the person of the proposed deduction the DWP will instruct the bank to deduct money, and repayments will be made directly to the DWP from the person’s bank account until the debt is repaid. That shows that it is quite a rigorous process, with a number of attempts to make contact with the person and a number of safeguards in rights to object and rights to appeal. In addition, for particularly vulnerable people, we have the vulnerability framework; part of that process supports people through referrals to advice services. We work with the Money and Pensions Service in particular, and frequently refer people to its services frequently.
For specific vulnerabilities and in particular cases, there is discretion to consider waiving the debt. That is unusual, but it is clearly an important safeguard for extreme cases—for instance, where domestic violence or financial coercion is involved. That is applied very much on a case-by-case basis; it is not a power or a policy that we would expect to use regularly.
I hope I have given the Committee an indication of the support and process for vulnerable people, and the number of humps in the road, as it were, before we get to the point at which we make a deduction.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Recovery from bank accounts etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Clause 90 inserts proposed new section 80B into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, adding the direct deduction order power to recover public money owed to the DWP directly from a debtor’s bank account. Direct deduction orders are vital to recovering funds owed by debtors who have the means to repay a debt but refuse to do so. This is essential to bolster the DWP’s ability to recover more of the public money owed by those who persistently evade repayment, to minimise losses to the taxpayer and to redirect the funds recovered to essential public services.
The powers also make DWP debt recovery fairer. At present, the DWP can recover debt directly from people on benefits by making deductions from benefits; it can also recover debt directly from those on PAYE through a direct earning attachment, but for those who are neither on benefits nor on PAYE, the DWP has limited options for recovery if they refuse to pay. That cannot be fair. For those not on benefits or PAYE, where all attempts to agree an affordable and sustainable repayment plan have failed, the option available to the DWP is to seek a third-party debt order via the court. Such action is restricted to lump-sum recoveries and can lead to debtors facing challenges securing credit due to the court judgment. Introducing the new power will allow the DWP to return taxpayers’ money to the public purse more effectively through affordable and regular deductions, without using court time.
There are important safeguards. First, the powers are to be used only as the last resort; multiple attempts at contact must be made, and those must be of different types—for example by letter and telephone. Secondly, all direct deduction orders will be subject to an affordability assessment based on the three months’ bank statements obtained. Thirdly, before any recoveries are made, individuals must be notified of the proposed action; they will have the right to present information to the DWP about their circumstances and the proposed terms of the order, in response to which the DWP may vary or revoke the order. Fourthly, if an order is still upheld after a review or consideration of information presented, the individual has a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal. These are important safeguards to ensure deductions do not cause undue hardship. In addition, the Department will always signpost to debt management advice. In the oral evidence session, we heard from the Money and Pensions Service about how well that partnership is operating.
Direct deduction orders are essential to increasing the amount of debt that the DWP can recover. They are balanced measures, with robust safeguards to protect those who are vulnerable or experiencing financial hardship. Having outlined the main provisions in clause 90, I commend it to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 90 makes provision for recovery of social security debts directly from the liable person’s bank account. That power is broadly similar to powers contained in the Child Support Act 1991 and the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015, which enable deductions to be made directly from the liable person’s bank account without a court order. We support the inclusion of the power in the Bill, but further to our debates on part 1, I should be interested to know whether any other measures beyond bank account recovery and disqualification from driving were considered. Reference was made earlier to the ability to seize assets, particularly in relation to part 1 and the Public Sector Fraud Authority, but as that is not on the face of the Bill I would be grateful for further details about if and where that is allowed for within part 2.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Jeremy. I am again raising concerns about a serious power to make direct deductions from people’s bank accounts.
Life does not always come in neat paragraphs; it is messy. I have had a number of letters from constituents in Horsham setting out the kind of errors that can happen. A lady called Marianne, who is a universal credit recipient, received a small inheritance, which she tried to report by phone and email, but that still resulted in her wrongly losing her UC for a period. Another constituent, Hannah, said:
“I have zero hours contract and work between 9-11 hours a week at just over minimum wage. At times I have had a back dated pay rise which pushed me over the allowance limit (I wasn’t informed in advance this was happening). I’m also at the mercy of someone else submitting my hours, so if they aren’t submitted on time they roll over to the next pay period causing me to exceed the allowance limit.”
At no time did she ever come anywhere near the allowance limit in real earnings; nevertheless, she was caught up in the rules.
Does the Minister feel that we have sufficient safeguards to avoid that kind of inadvertent administrative error? Mistakes have happened in the past and will continue to happen, but this is a very strong power that could cause real distress.
Andrew Western
We have not considered the seizure of assets under this Bill; nor are we are looking at forcing the sale of a home. We want to ensure that the powers we take are proportionate. We are not seeking to cause further hardship, and clearly the loss of their home would likely move a person into that category. Those decisions would ultimately remain with the court were we to take particularly serious case through the courts.
The hon. Member for Horsham raised some examples from his casework of people in receipt of universal credit who found they were inadvertently in receipt of overpayments. If they are still in receipt of universal credit—I think they are, going by what the hon. Gentleman said—they would be out of scope for the debt recovery powers that we are considering, so this provision would not apply in those specific examples.
If someone tells us of a change of circumstances, we always seek to action that as swiftly as possible. In cases such as the second example that the hon. Gentleman cited, where the mistake was the employer’s, there is not a tremendous amount that the Department can do. I have sympathy with his constituent, but it does not sound like that case would fall under the umbrella of departmental error. I assure him, however, that as both his constituents were still in receipt of benefits, they would not face a deduction from their bank accounts. That does not mean that an overpayment would not be recovered through other means, but recovery would be out of scope of this power. The treatment of overpayments from universal credit as recoverable was determined by Parliament a long time ago—I believe in 2012.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill..
Schedule 5
Recovery from bank accounts etc
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 8, to schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.
This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.
My amendment 8 is related to our debate about direct deduction orders and safeguards for people with social security debts. The amendment would remove the requirement for banks to routinely provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order. It is important to note that before the Secretary of State can make a direct deduction order, they must submit an account information notice to the bank with which the debtor has an account requesting copies of the debtor’s bank statements covering a period of at least three months prior to the notice being issued.
I understand that the disclosure’s intended purpose is for the Secretary of State to consider whether the debtor can afford to have the funds deducted, but the schedule states that the bank must not inform the debtor or joint account holders if it receives an AIN. I am concerned that powers to request granular information from banks about their customers, without the customers’ knowledge, to decide whether an individual can afford to pay back an overpayment are intrusive and potentially authoritarian. Bank statements can reveal sensitive and private information about an individual’s movements, associations, political opinions, religious beliefs, sex life, sexual orientation and trade union membership. Since an AIN can also apply to joint accounts, individuals who are not themselves benefit recipients can have their private financial information disclosed to the DWP in a similar way.
The powers will affect individuals who have been overpaid because of mistakes and oversights. The Secretary of State should not be able to covertly demand a person’s financial records without suspicion that the person has committed any criminal offence. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider amendment 8. It would remove the powers that require banks to hand over bank statements and account information, and thus it would prevent direct deduction orders being issued on the basis of covert financial surveillance. As with amendment 7, I hope we will come back to the issues raised by amendment 8 at a later stage, and that we will see some changes in this area.
Andrew Western
I will resist amendment 8. It is challenging to receive an amendment such as this after a conversation about what we are doing to protect vulnerable people. Having stressed the need to do that and to ensure that debts can be repaid in a way that is affordable, it would be wrong of me to agree an amendment that would entirely remove our ability to ascertain that.
The amendment seeks to remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Department in response to an account information notice and a general information notice for the purpose of making a direct deduction order. That removes a critical safeguard on direct deduction orders.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister consider the covert aspect of the requirement? The information is not given voluntarily by the person concerned. That is the authoritarian surveillance aspect and that is what concerns me the most; it is not merely that the Secretary of State is seeking useful information.
Andrew Western
The challenge is that, by that time, we will have made repeated and sustained attempts to contact the person to ask them to engage with us to agree an affordable repayment plan, to assess their ability to agree that plan and to encourage them to pay back what has already been established as a recoverable debt. The requirement is part of a power of last resort. I am not convinced that we would be able to secure engagement from such a person, as the power applies in relation to someone we have repeatedly tried to contact. Without it, I fail to see how we could both have a conversation with someone whom we have not previously been able to contact and assure ourselves that we would not be putting somebody in a particularly challenging financial position.
Neil Coyle
Is it fair to say that the impact of this amendment, if made, would be to require the DWP to ask people that they suspect of committing fraud for their permission to investigate whether they are committing fraud? Is it not likely that the number of potential fraudsters willing to give that information would be the roundest of round numbers?
Andrew Western
Not quite. We would not be contacting banks to establish whether fraud had been committed under the amendment. We would already have established that a debt is owed, so that investigation would already have been completed. The debt, whether it was the result of fraud or error, has been established. However, I agree with my hon. Friend on the number of people who, having previously not engaged with us at all, will concur on the need to check bank statements to assess affordability. That may well be the roundest of round numbers.
Under the Bill, before any direct deduction order is actioned, the DWP must issue an account information notice to a bank to obtain bank statements. The AIN must contain the name of the debtor and identify the targeted account. This is a necessary and important safeguard so that the DWP can gather sufficient financial information to make informed decisions on fair and affordable debt recovery. Obtaining this information is also vital to the effectiveness of the direct deduction power, as the Bill is clear that a deduction cannot be made until this information has been acquired. Without the information from bank statements, the DWP will not understand a debtor's financial circumstances and will not be able to establish an affordable deduction rate and commence recovery.
I remind the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the reason the information is not known is the sustained lack of engagement by the debtor in efforts to agree a voluntary and affordable repayment plan, and that the power is aimed at recovering taxpayers’ money from debtors who persistently evade repayment and refuse to engage with the DWP. The information gathered will make it clear whether they have the means to do so. Finally, I remind the Committee that these powers will be used as a last resort, and that by working with the DWP to agree affordable and sustainable repayment terms, debtors can avoid the application of the powers altogether.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 5, page 101, line 17, leave out from “exceed” to the end of line 18 and insert—
“(a) in a case to which sub-paragraph (3A) applies, the amounts credited to the account in the relevant period, or
(b) in any other case, 20% of the amounts credited to the account in the relevant period.
(3A) This subsection applies in a case where the Minister is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the payable amount to which the regular direct deduction order related is recoverable from the liable person because the liable person committed fraud.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 110, line 29, at end insert
“to which paragraph 6(3A) does not apply”.
Rebecca Smith
As hon. Members can see, amendment 48 would change the percentage of collections made, to bring them in line with what we have debated previously, so taking it down from 40% to 20%. It is fairly self-explanatory, but we felt that this decrease would make sense and tidy things up a bit. We are interested to know whether the Minister is in agreement.
Rebecca Smith
Amendment 22 is self-explanatory and I assume it is not something the Minister will be interested in, but we thought it was worth seeing what conversation could be had around it. Ultimately, it is as it is written and we are interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Andrew Western
Amendments 48 and 22 seek to limit the amount that can be deducted via a direct deduction order in any month to 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period in non-fraud cases, and to set no limit in cases where the Department considers it more likely than not that the debt is the result of fraud.
The hon. Member for South West Devon will know I have sympathy with the idea of quickly collecting debts that arise due to fraud, but the measures in the Bill already allow the Department to collect higher amounts through a lump sum deduction order, rather than through a regular deduction order. This important flexibility in the application of these powers will allow us to seek a higher level of deductions. A lump sum deduction order can also be followed with a regular deduction order, if deemed appropriate.
The Bill currently states that, where recovery is made under a regular deduction order, the deduction must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers, such as the direct earnings attachment power and the Child Maintenance Service’s deduction from earnings order power.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood, as the drafting obviously relates to the parallel provisions we debated in clause 22. My understanding is that, as currently drafted, if the Minister or the Public Sector Fraud Authority is satisfied that a loss is the result of fraud, they can impose a lump sum deduction up to 100% of the credited amount in an account. However, if they were to use a regular deduction order, each sum can be only 40%. Is there any reason, in principle or for welfare, why it is okay to take 100% of someone’s account on day one but not okay to take 50% today and 50% the following month?
Andrew Western
Put simply, my understanding is that if an individual debtor has sufficient money in their account to pay 100% on day one without financial hardship, we will apply that power. Where that is not possible—for example, if a person’s debt exceeds their means to repay it in one go—we will look at a regular deduction order. It is on that basis that we came to the 40% figure, which is based on the income going into an account each month.
We have set the cap to ensure that ongoing living costs can still be met on a month-by-month basis. It may not be that the figure used is 40%. We are simply seeking to give ourselves flexibility up to that amount. We are not saying that we will never recover more than that. If someone has £10 million in a bank account and owes the Department £1 million, it is reasonable to assume it will not cause them undue hardship to recover all of it in one go through a lump sum deduction.
The two powers are complementary but separate—one deals with ongoing recovery from a person who does not have sufficient means for recovery in one go, and the other deals with people who have savings or means significant enough to do just that. I hope that answers the question. I am happy to take another intervention if not.
The Bill currently states that when a recovery is made under a regular deduction order, deductions must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period—month by month is the obvious example. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers. The Department intends to set lower rates for regular deductions in non-fraud cases, allowing those rates to remain in line with existing recovery powers. Paragraph 24 of proposed new schedule 3ZA to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 therefore makes provision for regulations to be brought forward to set a maximum percentage deduction that is less than 40% in these cases.
Andrew Western
My argument is that the amendment is not required. The intention is to align deduction rates with other recovery methods used by the Department, and therefore the maximum rate of deduction is expected to be limited to a maximum of 20% in non-fraud cases.
I stress that these are maximum regular deduction rates; the actual deduction rate will depend on the level of income and other affordability considerations, based on the Department’s experience when applying deduction caps using existing recovery guidance outlined in the benefit overpayment guide, which can be found on gov.uk. In non-fraud cases, the amount regularly deducted will likely range between 3% and 20%. Similarly, not all fraud debt will be recovered at 40%. Regular deductions in fraud cases will range between 5% and 40%, depending on the debtor’s circumstances.
How the new debt measures operate will be clearly set out in the forthcoming statutory code of practice. These powers will enable the Department to apply the most appropriate debt recovery method to ensure efficient recoveries are made. Having outlined why I feel amendments 48 and 22 are unnecessary, I will therefore resist them.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew Western
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 5, page 107, line 2, leave out from “review” to end of line 7.
This amendment leaves out provision that is not needed; paragraph 13(5), (6) and (8) of new Schedule 3ZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as inserted by Schedule 5 of the Bill) makes the necessary provision.
Andrew Western
This amendment seeks to remove unnecessary repetition in the Bill, specifically removing part of paragraph 18 of proposed new schedule 3ZA to the Social Security Administration Act. This concerns the provision for the Secretary of State to notify the bank, the liable person and any other account holders, where appropriate, of the outcome of a review where a direct deduction order has been varied by the DWP.
This amendment does not change or remove that provision, as the DWP has a key obligation to ensure that all affected parties are notified of any changes to a direct deduction order following a review. This amendment simply removes a provision that is not needed; paragraphs 13(5), (6) and (8) of proposed new schedule 3ZA already makes the necessary provision. This amendment will simplify the Bill and prevent unintended confusion and duplication.
Schedule 5 introduces proposed new schedule 3ZA, which contains the substantive provisions of the new direct deduction orders, introduced in clause 90. The ability to recover directly from bank accounts is vital to recover public money owed to the DWP by those who have the means to repay but refuse to do so. As I outlined in my speech on clause 90, these powers will bring greater fairness to DWP debt recovery. At present, the DWP can recover debt directly from people on benefits only by making deductions from their benefits, and from those on PAYE through a direct earnings attachment.
For those who are on neither benefits nor PAYE, the DWP has limited options for recovery. Currently, there are an estimated 885,000 debtors off benefit who are not in repayment, with an estimated £1.74 billion not in recovery from this group. This schedule outlines powers to make lump sum and regular direct deductions from bank accounts through the use of a direct deduction order, as outlined in paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 3ZA. Paragraph 3 outlines the information notices that the DWP can give to a bank, how the bank must comply, the information it must provide and how this information can be used.
To determine whether to make a direct deduction order, the DWP can give a bank an account information notice or a general information notice. An account information notice must be given to a bank, prior to any direct deduction order, to obtain bank statements. It must contain the name of the debtor and identify the targeted account. It is a necessary and important safeguard so that the DWP can gather sufficient financial information to make informed decisions on fair and affordable debt recoveries. A general information notice can be issued at any time for the purpose of determining whether to make a direct deduction order. It requires the bank to provide information on all the bank accounts held by the debtor, including any joint or unincorporated business accounts.
A bank must comply with an information notice, and may be liable to a penalty for failure to comply without a reasonable excuse. The information provided by the bank is necessary and proportionate to ensure that the DWP considers a debtor’s financial situation before making a direct deduction order. As set out in paragraph 4, the schedule also requires the DWP to presume that any moneys in a joint account belong equally to the debtor and the other account holder, unless there is evidence to the contrary. That ensures that only the portion of funds reasonably attributable to the debtor can be recovered from joint accounts, protecting the rights of other account holders.
Before seeking to recover debt, the DWP must give the debtor notice. The notice must identify the account to be subject to the proposed order, state the terms of the order and identify the recoverable amount to which the order relates. It must also invite the debtor to make representations. It must set the time for representations to be made, which must be at least one month. The Secretary of State must consider those representations and uphold, vary or revoke the order. Only after any representations have been considered can the direct deduction order be made. If no representations are received, the order can be made but the account holders are given a further month to request a review.
To ensure that funds necessary for debt recovery are not deliberately concealed or withdrawn, a bank may be required to take steps, in response to the notice, to ensure that the amount proposed to be deducted is not removed while the account holders are given time to make representations or request a review. That is vital to ensure that funds necessary for debt recovery are available in the debtor’s bank account so that the direct deduction order cannot be evaded.
If an order is made, it must be given to the bank and account holders. If the account holder is still dissatisfied, having made representations or sought a review, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal, as I outlined previously. That allows disputes between the DWP and the debtor to be worked through quickly, while providing fair opportunities for the use of the power to be challenged.
When making a direct deduction, a DWP official will assess the bank information and determine the most appropriate deduction. As set out in paragraph 6, the schedule limits regular direct deductions to no more than 40% of the funds entering the account over the period in which the bank statements have been supplied. Regulations can lower, but not raise, the maximum percentage in some or all cases. That safeguards against excessive deductions and brings the powers in line with existing DWP recovery method legislation.
There is no legislative cap on lump sum deductions, as we expect to use them only where someone has large available savings. However, the DWP must be satisfied that neither lump sum nor regular deductions will cause the debtor, the other account holder or their dependants hardship in meeting essential living expenses. The Secretary of State may also vary direct deduction orders in the light of a change of circumstances—for example, if the debtor has a change of income or makes a new benefit claim.
In addition, paragraph 8 includes provision for a bank to deduct from the debtor’s account the administrative costs it has reasonably incurred by complying with a direct deduction order. That provision is essential to ensure that banks are compensated for the administrative efforts required to comply with the orders, thereby facilitating the efficient operation of debt recovery processes while protecting account holders from undue financial strain.
The schedule also contains provisions to ensure flexibility in direct deduction orders. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 16 allow the Secretary of State to vary, suspend or resume a regular direct deduction order. That provides the Secretary of State with the necessary flexibility to take appropriate action in relation to an order where a debtor’s circumstances change. Paragraph 9 requires that no deduction be made where the amount in the account is lower than the amount to be deducted. It is an important further safeguard to ensure that no one is pushed into hardship by a direct deduction order. Paragraph 17 makes provision to revoke a direct deduction order upon notification that the debtor has died.
Overall, the measure represents a significant part of the Bill, enabling the recovery of public money owed from those who persistently refuse to repay effectively, proportionately and fairly. Through this measure, the DWP estimates that it will realise benefits of £565 million in recovered debts over the forecast period.
Rebecca Smith
Schedule 5 makes provision regarding direct deduction orders from bank accounts. These can be regular or lump sum. The Secretary of State may make a direct deduction order in respect of a joint account only if the liable person does not hold a sole account in respect of which a direct deduction order may be made that would likely result in the recovery of the recoverable amount within a reasonable time. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what criteria will be used to decide whether a person has such an account. This came up last Thursday in relation to the main bank account of a claimant and the fact that the DWP will not be able to ascertain what other bank and savings accounts may be held. Is the same true here? Is this relevant only if the joint account is the account into which the benefits are paid? For the record, I am referring to column 238 of Hansard on 6 March.
The schedule will give the Secretary of State a power to request bank statements that is not time limited. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to request from banks details about the accounts that a person holds with that bank. The Secretary of State can set out how and when the bank must comply with the notice, and explain that the bank may be liable for a penalty under it if it fails to do so without a reasonable excuse. Can the Minister reassure the Committee about his planned engagement with banks—indeed, has he already had such engagement? Do banks think that this is a manageable requirement, and what will the costs of administering it be? Should that engagement with banks be due to happen, what might be done to reflect their views?
We have discussed that there is quite an onerous expectation on banks. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale, made a comment, in terms of the Cabinet Office powers, that it was almost the banks’ civic duty to make sure that they do this. I am intrigued to know whether they agree with that. It would be interesting to know what engagement Ministers have had, and what they will do about it. Lastly, how long will banks have to comply with notices, and what level of penalty will be levied on them if they do not comply? I think those are fair questions.
John Milne
The hon. Member raises the issue of the burden on banks; there is also the potential burden on the claimant. Banks sometimes have very large administrative charges, well in excess of the actual costs of whatever it is they do. Can the Minister give any assurance that there is some upper safety limit on excessive charging by banks? For instance, will a bank be able to charge for its corporate cost centre—a contribution towards its head office or functions—as can be the case with other charges? Basically, I seek clarity on the balance of how the charges will be administered.
Rebecca Smith
That relates to what I was going to say on amendment 43, had we got to it. I entirely appreciate what the hon. Member says about dealing with the vulnerable and protecting them from undue expectations, but is it not right that, if someone’s bank account goes overdrawn, they pay those charges regardless of their financial situation? Are we potentially seeking to give claimants more rights than they would ordinarily have with their own bank account simply because it is the DWP that is trying to recoup the money, rather than their bank?
John Milne
I am simply concerned that there should be some control of, or protection against, excessive charging. In the past, institutions have inflicted disproportionate charges that bear no relation to the actual cost of servicing whatever action had to be remedied. I am therefore seeking confirmation from the Minister that there is some protection in that direction as well with regard to the costs on the banks, as we said earlier.
Andrew Western
On the question raised by both the Opposition spokesperson and, substantively, the hon. Member for Horsham on the amounts that banks will levy in administrative charges on customers who are subject to a deduction order, paragraph 8 of schedule 5 makes provision for banks to deduct sums from an individual’s account for the purpose of meeting reasonable costs. Paragraph 23 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations to set and maintain a cap on the charges that the banks may deduct. That is in line with the approach taken by the Child Maintenance Service, which sets maximum rates that the debtor can be charged for lump-sum or regular deductions.
To give an indication of the maximum amounts, that is £55 for a lump-sum deduction and £10 that the bank may charge for each regular deduction. It is worth stating, for the benefit of Members, that banks do not necessarily charge that amount; it can be significantly lower, but that is the most that someone can expect to pay.
On banks more generally, the exact costs to banks of this are still being worked through, for obvious reasons, but they have the ability to claim back administrative costs, as we have just discussed. On engagement, I have met UK Finance and a number of banks on a number of occasions. I think that the overarching theme of those conversations is that they would not want anything too onerous placed on them, but that they welcome the thrust of what we are trying to achieve and want to be helpful in working with us to achieve that. Speaking of costs to banks is probably a natural point for me to mention the penalty that can be placed on banks for not complying, which is £500.
On the question of multiple accounts and the determination of which accounts to look into and so on, we would make multiple orders if we wanted to look at more than one bank account. We would send information notices to each of those. We can use those notices to see other accounts that are held and relevant. Were someone to have a number of accounts, they would not be able to evade this provision, as was the case perhaps when we were discussing the eligibility verification measure.
I think I have probably answered everything that I had noted. Please let me know if there is anything else. I was about to repeat myself—
The Chair
No need for that.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91
Disqualification from driving
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Western
The clause inserts proposed new section 80C into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enact the disqualification-from-driving power. The introduction of the clause will allow the DWP to apply to the court to disqualify temporarily a person from driving, if they persistently and deliberately fail to repay their debt. The power is vital to boost the DWP’s ability to recover public money.
In accordance with clause 89, the power will be used as a last resort in the most serious cases, where the outstanding debt is at least £1,000 and where the debtor has persistently and deliberately evaded repaying their debt, such as by moving their capital out of reach of a direct deduction order, introduced under schedule 5, despite having the financial means to repay.
Schedule 6 inserts proposed new schedule 3ZB into the 1992 Act and it contains the substantive provision of the disqualification-from-driving power introduced under clause 91. The schedule sets out when the power may be used and how it will operate, including rules on the operation of suspended and immediate disqualification orders, variation and revocation of orders, as well as the grounds on which an order may be appealed. Appeals may be made to the appropriate appellate court on points of law, including the terms of an order or the court’s decision to make, not make, vary or revoke an order.
Only when all attempts at recovery, including the new direct deduction power, have failed will the Department for Work and Pensions be able to apply to the court for a suspended DWP disqualification order. If the court agrees that the debtor had the means but did not repay without a reasonable excuse, it will order the debtor to make what it assesses to be affordable repayments. The debtor can avoid being disqualified by making those repayments; it is only if the debtor does not comply with the court’s repayment terms that the DWP can apply for an immediate DWP disqualification order. It is at that point—again, only if the court agrees—that the debtor can be disqualified from holding a licence for up to two years.
Before either a suspended or immediate order can be made, the debtor will have opportunity to be heard by the court. We recognise that stopping someone from driving is a serious step, so my Department has built in several safeguards to give debtors every opportunity to avoid that. For example, missing a single instalment will not result in an immediate disqualification order. Even when someone is disqualified, they can get back the right to drive when they start making the repayments and the court considers that repayments are likely to continue.
However, persistent evaders who have the means to pay their debts will no longer be able to evade paying; it is against them that we would utilise this power. It is important to note that the court cannot make either a suspended or immediate order if it considers that the debtor has an essential need for their licence, such as if they need to drive as part of their job or to care for a dependant. That important safeguard in schedule 6 ensures a balance between taking robust action against those who deliberately evade recovery and preventing undue hardship.
The powers are key to recovering funds from those who deliberately evade repayment of public money owed to the DWP. Having outlined the main provisions in clause 91 and schedule 6, I urge the Committee to support them.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 91 makes provision for a liable person to be disqualified from driving. Any disqualification from driving will always be suspended in the first instance, subject to the liable person complying with what the court has assessed to be affordable and reasonable payments. When disqualification does occur, it is temporary and the liable person can have the disqualification lifted by satisfying the court that they are now making and will continue to make repayments.
We support the clause in general, but I have a few questions for the Minister about the practicalities, which are worth debating. First, however, will he clarify whether the clause is for cases of fraud, error or both? From what he said, it feels as if it is for both, and it is worth getting that on the record. What safeguards will the Department put in place to ensure that someone is not disqualified unnecessarily? Again, it sounds as if there is a long process before getting to that point. Is there a right of appeal or can the process be stopped before the disqualification takes place?
A few additional questions came to mind as I listened to the Minister just now. What role are the DVLA and the police expected to play in the wider disqualification? Who is responsible for the enforcement of that disqualification? I certainly know of a neighbour of mine who was disqualified for two years but continued driving; it was frustrating when I knew what he had done. Who would be responsible for that enforcement? In that instance, I knew that I could ultimately go to the police, but the scenario could be different in this case.
Likewise, will the decisions to disqualify from driving be publicised as they are when someone is disqualified for speeding or drink-driving? Again, that is part of the punishment; it also enables other people to know when somebody is in breach and promotes enforcement. It is also worth querying what measures might be put in place when somebody cannot be disqualified. The Minister said that some people would not be disqualified because of their jobs or family situations. What would be the deterrent for those people?
Furthermore, what if the person were not a driver or in possession of a driving licence? Obviously, recovery will be attempted from bank accounts, but if losing a driving licence is the final stop point it will be in the interests of fraudsters to divest themselves of theirs. We need to make sure that whatever it is that we are trying to achieve in the Bill, there are no shortcuts or opportunities for people to evade the repayment that the Department seeks.
John Milne
I am uncomfortable with this proposal, because it seems unfair that one group of people should be liable to a punishment and not another. If someone cannot drive or they do not have a car, this punishment means nothing to them, whereas another group who do drive are affected—and some of them very deeply, depending on their lifestyle, such as living in the country or other necessary means. I am fundamentally uncomfortable with what seems to be a punishment that falls on only one group of people, when it should be levied equally.
Siân Berry
As we have been discussing, schedule 6 and clause 91 make provision that, where all other methods of debt recovery have failed, including the direct deduction order measures we have been discussing, the DWP may apply to a court to have the debtor disqualified from driving. Like the hon. Member for Horsham, I have real concerns about these new powers. I cannot see how this specific novel civil penalty of removing a driving licence is at all appropriate to the particular group of people we are discussing, nor do I see the equivalence to the people being enforced upon by HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which have similar powers.
Legitimate benefit claimants who are overpaid through error, make a mistake or for any other reason owe money to the DWP are, almost by definition, in need of help. They might often make mistakes or fail to disclose information through an oversight, and their failure to engage with the DWP to date might be due to genuine incapacity and health issues. I am therefore very concerned that there are ineffective safeguards in the court process for these powers.
Although the DWP must apply to the court for the disqualification order, the court does not have discretion to refuse unless the debtor needs a driving licence to earn a living or has another essential need for one. It is unclear the extent to which this will protect vulnerable benefit claimants who have not engaged with the DWP due to incapacity, illness or mental ill health, or for whom driving is not essential for their work, but may be essential for their wellbeing or family life. I am not sure that the proposed legislation is clear enough about what will be deemed essential or what will be reasonable for the court to object to.
I also have concerns, as outlined a moment ago, that these powers cannot be exercised unless the people concerned have tried every other method, from benefit deductions or deductions from earnings to the direct deductions from bank accounts—the measure we have just discussed, which is extraordinarily intrusive on people’s financial information and privacy. Given that these powers would only be used where it appears that those other powers cannot be, is it not true that they are basically only for when a debtor cannot physically pay back what they owe? In effect, this measure of removing the driving licence is a punishment. It is a poverty penalty for those who do not have the means, despite all the intrusion that Ministers have gone through to establish that, to return what they have been overpaid.
I cannot support this power. It is incredibly punitive. I do not think it will create the conditions in which debtors are encouraged to engage with the DWP, but it could create dire consequences for individuals who are already struggling and least able to afford repayments.
Andrew Western
I will attempt to answer those questions, and hon. Members are free to intervene if I have missed anything. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, asked whether this would be a power that is implemented in response to just fraud, or fraud and error. Because it is in response to a failure to repay a debt, it could be utilised for either. The criteria for its use is not how the overpayment came about, but whether the person has engaged to pay it back.
The safeguard around whether somebody is disqualified unnecessarily is all the various measures that we have attempted previously, plus the determination of the court. Responsibility for enforcement would lie with the Courts and Tribunals Service and the DVLA. However, if somebody was driving without a licence, that would clearly also be a legal issue. On the question whether we would advertise that somebody had had their licence suspended, we would not, because no crime has been committed; the suspension is just as a result of somebody failing to repay a debt. That is distinct from somebody who has had their licence removed because they have broken the law through drink-driving or some such crime.
John Milne
In the light of the Minister’s confirmation that this power does refer both to error and fraud, I am all the more concerned. Removing a driving licence can mean the removal of a means of income. It is almost like the old-fashioned debtors’ prison: someone is in debt, so they are put in prison, and then they cannot get out of their debt. It is a Catch-22 situation.
I understand that the power has been used regarding the Child Maintenance Service. I have a case in Horsham where a constituent feels that he is being unreasonably demanded of; he is in trouble because he will potentially lose his job because of just such an order. Therefore, this power could be applied inaccurately or incorrectly—it is inevitable that in a large organisation there will be mistakes—so I am concerned that the power seems both very extreme and, as I said before, not generally applied. It should be generally applied in order to be legitimate.
Andrew Western
On the point about a debtors’ prison, if somebody requires their vehicle for work, that is a criterion that a judge can consider in terms of whether a licence should be disqualified. It is also worth remembering that, in all cases, the initial move would be to suspend the suspension of the driving licence to give somebody the time to engage with us and start to pay. While, as I say, this is baked in as a last resort, we have put a number of break points in this process for people to engage. Indeed, even after we have suspended the licence, if somebody starts making repayments, they can have their licence reinstated. However, we have explicitly stated that caring responsibilities and the need for a car for employment purposes are criteria that would mean that we would not look to pursue that suspension.
Turning to the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, I understand where she is coming from. She is consistent in her view of an erosion of civil liberties coming about as a result of many aspects of this Bill. However, I must say to her that the idea that we have exhausted everything, including deductions from benefits, fundamentally misses the point about the cohort of people who would be in scope for this power. Benefit claimants and people who are paid through PAYE would not be in scope of the driving licence power; it would be people who are no longer on benefits. Indeed, if they were on benefits, we would be able to deduct from those benefits directly, without needing recourse to such actions.
I therefore take a fundamentally different view from the hon. Lady on whether this amounts to a poverty penalty. Clearly, the poorest people would not be impacted by this power; it is for people who we know have the means to pay. Usually, we know they have the money, but they have moved it out of our reach, so we have ascertained their ability to pay, but it is not possible to lay our hands on those funds. This power—like wider mechanisms for people who do not drive, such as charging orders—is the initial lever to bring people to the table.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Horsham, before we suspend a licence, we will ask people to engage with us. After agreeing the right to suspend that licence, we will give somebody a further opportunity to engage with us and to begin making regular repayments. After the licence has ultimately been suspended, there will again be the opportunity to commence regular payments and have the licence reinstated. All that is a power of last resort.
I will give the Child Maintenance Service statistics for context. The CMS utilised this power on seven occasions last year; six of those were suspensions of suspension and only one was an actual suspension of a driving licence. That tells us that this power is important as much as a deterrent as in practice. It is for that reason that it forms a part of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gerald Jones.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 19 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 19 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 21 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that electronic devices should be turned off or switched to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.
We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be interventions, by which I mean that they should be short and should raise a point of clarification or ask a question; they are not speeches. Members who wish to give a speech should bob, and should continue to do so at the appropriate points in the debate in which they wish to take part. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair, which is me. If they do not mean me, they might find it easier to look at me and direct their speeches to me, so that they address the Committee correctly.
Clause 9
Doctors’ assessments: further provision
Question proposed (this day): 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert
“, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert
“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.
This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.
Amendment 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”.
Amendment 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—
(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;
(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.
(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”.
This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. When we adjourned at 11.25 this morning, I had just been discussing amendment 201, but I will start again.
Amendment 201 seeks to clarify the wording in clause 9 relating to doctors’ assessments. It provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records applies only to records that appear relevant to the doctor. The effect of the amendment is to make it clear as part of the assessment process that the assessing doctor is required only to review medical records that are considered by the doctor to be relevant to the person’s request to seek an assisted death.
Amendment 422 would add an additional requirement on an assessing doctor to make inquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person and make such other inquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.
Amendment 423 would require the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals. These professionals should have qualifications in or experience of a matter relevant to the person being assessed, and they must be consulted if the assessing doctor considers that there is a need. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and to the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment. The amendment also provides that a record of any consultation with the specialist health or social care professionals must be shared with the other assessing doctor.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to ascertain that the person has
“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
That is set out in clauses 7 and 8. There is also a power in clause 30(1)(a) for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in connection with
“the assessment of whether a person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life”.
There are requirements for the assessing doctors to ascertain that a person is making the declaration
“voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person”.
That is set out in clauses 7(2)(g) and 8(2)(e). Amendment 468 would supplement those requirements with a requirement for the assessing doctor to ask a person why they are seeking an assisted death. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I have nothing further to add.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 9, page 6, line 1, leave out “might” and insert “is to”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 305, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “about death” insert
“and any other effects in addition to death.”
This amendment would require the assessing doctor to explain effects the provided substance would have in addition to death.
Amendment 142, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert
“and how it will be administered”.
This amendment requires the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life will be administered.
Amendment 362, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert
“and the risk and nature of possible complications including pain”.
This requires the doctor to explain the risk of possible complications to the person.
Amendment 306, in clause 9, page 6, line 6, after “section 18” insert
“including the escalation of medical intervention”.
This would require the assessing doctor to include the escalation of medical intervention in their discussion of the person’s wishing in the event of complications arising in the administration of the substance under section 18.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to speak to this group of amendments. Amendments 93, 305, 142 and 362 relate to clause 9(2)(b)(iv); amendment 306, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), relates to clause 9(2)(c).
Clause 9(2)(b)(iv) stipulates:
“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed…the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.
My amendment 93 would replace “might” with “is to”. In my view, the word “might” creates an air of possibility. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition:
“A possibility as distinct from a certainty”.
The Cambridge Dictionary goes somewhat further, defining “might” as the expression of a
“possibility that something will happen or be done, or that something is true although not very likely”.
In the context of the Bill, I consider that the use of “might” would create too ill-defined a concept.
For a patient to provide informed consent, it is necessary that the healthcare professional set out the relevant information in sufficient detail to enable that person to make an educated decision. In the circumstances of providing a substance, it follows that that information must include what that substance is. In my submission, it is insufficient simply to inform a patient that they might be provided with a substance, although they are just as likely, if not more likely, to receive another substance. Changing “might” to “is to” would provide greater certainty and precision in the wording of the Bill.
I recognise the concerns that have been raised that adopting amendment 93 would overly restrict which substance can be used, which may create an issue if the substance needs to be changed, for example if it was to be taken orally but has to be administered via a different route because the individual is no longer able to ingest orally. To my mind, however, the amendment would not prohibit a clinician from setting out to the individual a range of substances that could be used to provide them with the ability to end their own life, as long as the clinician includes the substance that is used and, crucially, the person seeking an assisted death indicates that in those circumstances they are content for that particular substance to be used. For example, it would be entirely open to an individual to inform a clinician that they are happy with regimes A, B and C, but not D.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend is trying to do. This is a genuine question: does he think that it is possible at this stage for the Government, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the NHS or whoever to provide the information that would be required? What is needed to enable the Bill to come into effect with the amendment that he proposes, so doctors are able to say exactly what drugs will be used?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
In the scenario that I envisage, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, there are a variety of regimes that could be used in the given circumstances. It would be appropriate for an approved list of medications and substances to be a delegated matter for the Secretary of State. As medical and pharmacological studies progress, there may be changes to those regimes, so I do not propose putting a list on the face of the Bill. The way I envisage it operating, if the Bill comes into law, is that there would be an approved list of substances that would be open to use. There would have to be a range; we are acutely aware that there are supply chain issues at times, so limiting it to just one regime would be impracticable. I believe that amendment 93 would strengthen the wording of the Bill to provide greater certainty that the nature of the substance to be provided will be explained to and discussed with the person who is seeking an assisted death. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating his broad support for the amendment.
I turn to amendment 305, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. I appreciate the premise of the amendment, but I have some concerns about the precision of the drafting. It would require the assessing doctor to explain the effects of the provided substance, in addition to how it would bring about death. In its current form, the Bill requires the discussion with the assessing doctor to set out how the provided substance will result in death. My understanding is that the intent of amendment 305 is that they set out the side effects beyond those directly related to the mechanics of bringing about death; this would include any wider discussion around side effects.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Currently, when we start a patient on any medication, we usually give out information on indications and contraindications. If patients ask for one, we will give them a leaflet with information about the medication. Can the hon. Member clarify whether the amendment would help in that situation? Does he agree that a leaflet should be given to the patient?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes an important point. In practice, one would of course discuss the side-effect profile of any medication or substance to be administered. I do not feel that specifying that in the Bill, as amendment 305 is drafted, would achieve its purpose. The amendment refers to “any other effects”, but it does not specifically mention side effects. In any event, it must flow from the interaction between clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c) that the conversation about complications as a result of the administration of a substance will encompass a conversation about side effects.
It is worth noting that all substances have a side-effect profile; what the side effects are will be specific to the substance in question. I do not think it a helpful improvement to the Bill to presuppose what the side effects may be. Amendment 305, although imperfect, is therefore preferable in my view to amendment 362, which would require that specific side effects be set out and which presupposes a scenario involving a particular set of medication.
Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the wording of amendment 305. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley provided some reassurances as to the steps she has taken to honour the intention of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central and achieve a tighter piece of legislative drafting.
I turn to amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. It seeks to ensure that the discussion with the assessing doctor includes a discussion of how the substance will be administered. Although it may not be strictly necessary, because that should be a conversation that takes place when someone is going through an informed consent process, I do not consider that its inclusion would undermine the operability of the Bill. I am therefore minded to support the amendment. I do not consider that it will be restrictive should the circumstances change, because there may be a broad conversation about the variety of substances that can be administered, depending on the circumstances. As the drafting of the Bill does not preclude or prohibit such a wider discussion, it would be eminently sensible to include the route of administration.
Amendment 306, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, would require the assessing doctor to include the escalation of medical intervention in their discussion should complications arise. In many ways, that issue is covered by clause 9(2)(c), so the amendment would not aid the operability or interpretation of the Bill. It would be much better dealt with under the code of conduct, to avoid the Bill becoming overly prescriptive and to allow flexibility as scientific and medical knowledge adjusts and adapts over time.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I will speak to amendment 142, which would insert
“and how it will be administered”
into the Bill. It would require the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist them to end their life will be administered.
The amendment would be a key step towards giving peace of mind to a terminally ill individual who is seeking an assisted death. It would also preserve their autonomy right up to the final stage. Ensuring that the method of administration is thoroughly explained would provide the doctors and the individual seeking an assisted death with the opportunity to consider the options—if there are options available to them—and decide which method would best preserve the autonomy of that individual.
Assisted dying presents many opportunities for individuals to be coerced, especially at the final stage—death itself. Therefore, the method of administration is key information for the individual to know, and it is not sufficient for it to be withheld from them. We must make it a prerequisite of the Bill that it is supplied. Making an informed choice about the assisted death pathway involves careful consideration, and knowing and understanding every step of the process. It is appropriate for the person to maintain their agency. Minimising the role played by the doctor at the administration stage is also key to ensure that the final act belongs to that individual.
We must acknowledge that many individuals seeking assisted death may experience significant mobility and physical limitations, particularly because of their terminal illness. Those limitations can affect their ability to engage with the process in ways other people may take for granted. For example, a patient suffering from severe weakness, paralysis or chronic pain might have difficulty physically positioning themselves or administering some types of substance, depending on the options available. A person may have difficulty swallowing and would not be able to ingest a substance in the form of a pill, but they may be able to autonomously operate a system that would allow them intravenous administration.
In these cases, the method of administration must be carefully considered and explained in a way that accommodates the patient’s unique physical needs. By discussing the challenges openly at this stage, doctors can help to ensure that the patient understands the options open to them, while making the process as comfortable and accessible as possible. Addressing their mobility and physical limitations in this context is not only a matter of practicality, but a reflection of our compassion and respect for that individual’s circumstances.
By limiting the doctor’s physical role, we also ensure that the patient retains control over the process. Making the act of self-administration as independent as possible ensures that the final part of the process gives the patient agency in choosing how and when to end their life. The individual must maintain a primary role in their death, but the actual administration is the final assurance and assertion of the individual’s choice to end their life. The amendment emphasises the importance of ensuring that, within the Bill, the doctor’s involvement is limited to preparation and support. That is key to making sure that the patient’s final moments are self-directed and as free from any unnecessary external interventions as possible.
Subsection 6 of clause 18, on the provision of assistance, discusses the role of the doctor in administration. It says that a doctor might
“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”
By ensuring that the method of administration of the substance aligns with the physical capabilities that a person has to self-ingest, which may be limited, we limit the role played by the doctor at this crucial stage, and limit the chance of the coercion of the individual or of the individual having a death that lacks real autonomy.
In conclusion, amendment 142 plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of a terminally ill individual seeking an assisted death. By ensuring that the method of administration is clearly explained, we empower patients to make an informed, autonomous decision about the way in which they wish to end their life.
Danny Kruger
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Esther. [Interruption.] You are Dame Esther, aren’t you?
Danny Kruger
Are you not? That is an extraordinary oversight. That must be rectified as soon as possible— I am sure it will be. I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and those in the names of the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. As he has explained, amendment 93 requires doctors to specify what drug “is to” be used, not just “might be” used. My amendment 362 states that there must be clarity on the complications and risks involved in the procedure. Amendment 305 states that we must be clear about
“other effects in addition to death.”
Amendment 306 discusses escalation in the event of complications.
We have discussed informed consent previously. We have identified that the General Medical Council’s guidance on critical information that patients must receive has been selectively placed in clause 7. Of the five areas that the GMC says should usually be conveyed to patients, two were omitted: first,
“uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation”,
and secondly,
“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success for each option, including the option to take no action. By ‘harm’ we mean any potential negative outcome, including a side effect or complication.”
It is not being explicitly stated that doctors should communicate that to patients.
Telling a patient exactly which drug or substance will be used to end their life, and its likely side effects, is critical if they are to have informed consent. Full understanding requires the patient to know the specific drug that will be used. It lets the patient grasp the method, its effects and its finality. Patients deserve to know how the drug will work; what its administration will be, whether oral or intravenous; the time it will take to have an effect, whether that is minutes or hours; and the other sensations that will be felt. It is difficult to say that we can convey that information without being specific about which drug will be used.
In other countries, for instance in the Netherlands, the criteria require that patients are fully informed, including about the drug that will be used and the method. In Oregon, the Death with Dignity Act similarly requires discussing the prescription of the specific drugs. That equips the patient to find out more, should they wish to do so, and to ask questions. A patient with a terminal disease needs to know the drug to confirm if it aligns with his or her wish for a peaceful death—it is not just an abstract agreement to die, trusting that medicine will do the trick.
An important consideration to note is age. Dr Jessica Kaan, writing in the Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, found
“a clear and linear correlation between younger patient age and longer times to death. Older-age patients have, on average, shorter deaths.”
It is important for clinicians to be aware of that research. She continued:
“Clinicians should consider and discuss this information as part of informed decision-making…with patients.”
They can do that only if they are aware of what the drugs will be.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 362. Does he accept that Australia, for example, has a very different regime from America? In Australia, people are given pentobarbital, which has not failed on any occasion—in any of the 2,500 treatments since assisted dying was legalised. In America, people are not allowed to use that; instead, they use another cocktail of drugs, which is not as ideal and can have other side effects. May I also say that I am not sure whether it is totally relevant to discuss the problems of a drug given in America in this context? We are discussing just putting down in law what the doctor is obliged to say to the patient.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points because he helps me to direct my argument. It is essential to discuss the evidence from abroad about the complications that arise from assisted suicide, but the evidence is very patchy: we know what we know, but we don’t know much. There is a complete dearth of evidence, including in Australia. When Australians gave evidence to the Committee, it was put to them, accurately, that there is a great lack of adequate data gathering in Australia, as in other countries too. So when he says there have been no complications in Australia, what he means is that there have been no reports of complications in Australia. As we always need to point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Kim Leadbeater
That question was indeed put to the experts from Australia, but actually they were quite clear that there is a huge amount of evidence. Indeed, there is a very robust reporting mechanism in Australia—the best in the world, I suggest—so there is a huge amount of evidence from that jurisdiction.
Danny Kruger
Let us not rehash the conversations that we had in the evidence sessions, but I would advise Members to review those conversations. Indeed, there is further publicly available evidence, which I am happy to share, of the problems with data collection in Australia, as in other countries. To the point of the hon. Member for Stroud about the evidence of complications that arise in other jurisdictions being irrelevant to our discussions, because of the lack of clarity in the Bill about what drugs would be used to bring about the assisted suicides that we are proposing to legalise, all we can do is rely on evidence from abroad, and I will insist on doing so.
As well as questions about complications and side effects, there is also a crucial question about how long it takes to die. In Canada, a study demonstrated that in 5% of cases, patients experienced a prolonged time to death. Another study showed that 50% of cases in Canada with available data—again, there is a lack of data—were unsuccessful within 60 minutes. It is clearly common in other countries for death to take up to or more than an hour.
The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers—the people who do it—acknowledged that patients who ingest assisted suicide drugs can experience burning, nausea, vomiting and regurgitation. I am not saying that that always happens, or that it happens in the majority of cases, but it clearly happens. It is therefore appropriate for patients to be properly informed of those risks, if they are associated with the drugs that will be used. We do not know what those are going to be at this stage.
In the Netherlands, where assisted dying or assisted suicide has been legal for 20 years, a third of people with assisted suicide deaths experience some adverse symptoms such as pain, restlessness, shortness of breath, secretions, nausea and vomiting—that is, a third of people experienced some of those distressing side effects as they died, so it is very far from a guarantee of a pain-free death. It is vital that people considering an assisted death are aware of those possible effects, in addition to the primary effect of the drugs which is, of course, to kill them.
There is also a question about the method of administration. People should know that where regimes use the intravenous route of a short-acting anaesthetic, that is also not without problems. People would understand, and potentially argue for, having an anaesthetic as the first part of the cocktail of drugs that will be administered, but evidence from abroad demonstrates that the anaesthetic induction agent, which is usually propofol, a drug that puts people to sleep before surgery, can wear off rapidly in some people, particularly in younger patients, those who are less ill and those who are larger in size.
In around two thirds of assisted deaths with administrations that use that technique, that anaesthetic is rapidly followed by a paralysing agent. The patient cannot then move a muscle and, unable to breathe at all, they die of asphyxia. Unfortunately, there has been no monitoring of patients while they are given those drugs to ascertain whether they regain consciousness as they die. They cannot move a muscle, so they cannot signal distress. We are unclear what the experience of the dying person is beneath the apparent calm that has been induced in them by the paralytic drug that they have been given.
We do know, however, that similar combinations have been used in judicial executions. Post mortems have shown, as reported in The Lancet in 2005, that the level of anaesthetic induction agent in the blood at the time of death was lower than that required for surgery in 88% of executed inmates. Shockingly, in 43%, the concentrations were consistent with awareness, meaning they may have suffered during the execution.
Dr Opher
The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital. At 15 grams, that has not had any failures—no one has woken up. The only real side effect that people complain of before they go to sleep, which happens very quickly, is that it is very bitter. One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects. I would push back on some of those scare stories.
Danny Kruger
I am afraid to say that the whole debate about assisted dying is replete with scare stories. The hon. Gentleman says that they are descriptions of horrible events, but that is the situation that we are dealing with. We are here to try to pass legislation that is designed to avert horrible deaths. I am absolutely committed to that as well, but the evidence from abroad shows that people can also have a horrible death with assisted dying.
The hon. Gentleman points to Australia, but the evidence from Western Australia in particular is that over 4% of assisted deaths reported complications. He might be right that it is a better regime than that used in the United States, but even there complications occur. We do not know yet what the regime will be here, but I am alerting the Committee to the genuine danger of an assisted dying regime that induces very unpleasant results for patients.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I am inclined to support his amendment 362 and amendment 142 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, not because of, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the scare stories or the examples that the hon. Member has been giving, but predominantly because of what the amendment says on the tin: that a person must be given a full explanation of the risks of complications and how a substance should be administered. As I have said a number of times in Committee—
Jack Abbott
It is an intervention, Ms McVey. My plea to the hon. Member is to focus on exactly what the amendment states. I appreciate all the stories and examples that he wishes to make, but it is important to reflect on the words of the amendment. As I said, I am minded to support it.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention.
Amendment 306, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, addresses the question of what to do in the event of complications. I recognise that clause 9 states that that must be discussed, which I welcome. I think, though, that there is a significant absence that this amendment would address, which is what to do in the event of complications—specifically, which intervention would be appropriate.
Here we get into a very difficult area. I personally find it difficult to understand a way out of it, because it is a consequence of the sort of legislation that we are considering: what do we do when complications arise? Specifically, what do we do when the patient does not die and is still alive some hours later, possibly in distress? I have cited evidence about some of the complications that occur and the prevalence—for example, that 10% of such people in Oregon experience complications, including some who simply wake up again. We need to resolve this. On explaining possible side effects and complications, under the Bill as it stands none of the declarations that are signed by the doctors or the person requesting assistance confirm in writing that the criterion has been met for proper communication, so that is one concern.
My more substantial concern—I will finish with this—is that at the moment the doctors have to explain the complications, even though we do not know what the drugs are going to be yet, but they cannot discuss or decide with the patient what they would do in the event of complications. We know that the doctor must be present at the end or in the next room, but can they halt the process if complications arise—if the patient wakes up or is exhibiting signs of distress? That would be against the last known wishes of the patient who had said that they wanted to go ahead with the death. Should the doctor expedite the death knowing that that is what the patient theoretically wanted? Of course not, because that would be euthanasia; it would be the doctor actually killing the patient, which is illegal under the Bill. Do they stand by and do nothing at all, which goes against the doctor’s obligations to address symptoms and illness in a patient? If the patient is fitting or vomiting, the doctor would normally clear their airways. Should they do that, knowing that that might bring the patient back to life—that it might resuscitate them and stop the assisted death?
When we debate clause 18, we will discuss the process of the assistance that the doctor gives, but we are obliged, when we come to debate the Bill fully, to choose between three options. We could allow complications without any guidance, which is what the Bill does; that raises all sorts of challenges, and practical and ethical concerns, for doctors. We could stipulate that the patient should be revived, perhaps if a certain degree of distress is witnessed or if the patient is still alive after a certain period of time. Finally, we could allow euthanasia and say that, in that event, the doctor should be authorised to expedite the death. I do not know what the option should be. That is a question that a doctor would have to face in reality, in the bedroom of a patient who is exhibiting complications. I do not know what to do, but I do not think we should be proceeding with this Bill. Those who do believe in it have to answer this question: what does a doctor do if a patient is exhibiting distress and not dying—do they bring them back to life, expedite their death or do nothing?
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 362, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, which requires the registered medical practitioner to explain and discuss the nature and the risk of the lethal drugs. There is a bit of a theme to the amendments I have tabled so far: they have almost all been about giving the patient more information. The promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, is quite right in focusing on the importance of the patient’s autonomy. I absolutely believe in and value that autonomy—I am sure everybody across the Committee does so too—but true autonomy is linked to having access to good quality and accurate information. It can severely impact someone’s autonomy if they do not. This Bill states that the person must have an informed wish to end their own life. I believe that this must explicitly include an understanding of the nature of, and the risks of, the lethal drugs involved in assisted dying.
This Bill’s passage through this place has led to lots of conversations and a greater awareness of the issue of death across the country. Morbid as that is, it is a really good, healthy thing that people are talking about end of life—something which we will all encounter—and that is welcome. The debate on assisted dying has made many people concerned about the nature of death and the choice that they might face at the end of their life. Inevitably, for some, the impression has been given that an assisted death uniformly provides a pain-free alternative. I accept that that is absolutely what the promoter of the Bill, and those in support of it, are aiming for—that is not in question—but we have heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about issues with that, and that there have been exceptions in places where such laws have been put in place. I also point to the evidence of James Haslam, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine, who put in his written evidence to the Committee that assisted dying
“does not guarantee a painless, peaceful and dignified death.”
The key word there is “guarantee” because, unfortunately, some people who ingest the prescribed lethal drugs do experience distress and complications. In the Netherlands, a high dose of barbiturates is used for all administrations of lethal drugs, and in two thirds of cases—the majority—the person dies within 90 minutes, but a third of cases do take longer and can take up to 30 hours. Complications include difficulty swallowing the whole prescribed dose, vomiting, and in some cases re-emergence from coma. I do not accept that this is an incidental concern. Vomiting affects up to 10% of assisted deaths by oral administration in the Netherlands. There is no easy way to research the efficacy of these drugs on humans given their lethal effects, and as a result there is no regulatory authority in the world that has approved these drugs to be used for this purpose. The data that we have shows that these complications take place in all jurisdictions that have assisted dying. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has already mentioned with respect to Oregon, between 2012 and 2022, 11% of the time there were complications.
These complications raise important ethical and medical questions for the doctor and for the terminally ill person. Of course, by the time complications occur, it is too late to discuss or reconsider the person’s options. That is why it is essential that the registered medical practitioner has already explained and discussed with the person the risk and nature of the lethal drugs. Choice is about not simply having options available, but understanding them. That goes to the point I made at the beginning: autonomy is absolutely linked to the quality of the information that someone has been given in order to make that autonomous choice. That requires the registered medical practitioner to explain the full risk and the nature of the possible complications from the lethal drugs.
The General Medical Council sets out five points of guidance for doctors on how they should hold a dialogue with their patients about reaching a decision. Three of the five GMC points are already covered by the Bill, but two are excluded: uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation; and the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success of each option, including the option to take no action.
I can see no good reason why we would not want doctors to be entirely honest with patients who are considering assisted dying, even to the point of saying that the vast majority of people will not have any complications, but there is a chance. Personally, I see no issue with that, or why there should be. Doctors should give their patients that information; not only is that good practice—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley—but, as the GMC guidance makes it clear, they should do so because we should not give people with serious illnesses a false picture of what assisted death means. I link back to the emphasis on the word “guarantee”, as per the written evidence I quoted.
Amendment 362 would affirm the commitment of the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to upholding medical standards. It would clarify the full responsibilities of the registered medical practitioner under the General Medical Council guidelines. Perhaps more importantly, it would put the terminally ill person in a better position to understand fully the options available and the associated risks.
In Committee, we have heard frequently that the Bill is about expanding choice and autonomy at the end of life. To act autonomously, terminally ill people need— I emphasise this again—to understand what they are facing as best they can, with the best and most accurate information available to them as early as possible. That is why I support amendment 362, and I urge the Committee to do so, too.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 305 and 306, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
Under amendment 305, a doctor would have to explain what effects the medicines would have as well as death. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, and what other Members have said about effects and side effects. I would first say: we do not know the side effects. There is no research into any of the drugs being used for the purpose that we are looking at—for assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever whichever jurisdiction calls it. We therefore cannot give a clear view of what the side effects are; they are largely unknown, as I understand it.
In addition, there are different drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned one drug, pentobarbital, which has caused huge concern. I did not know about the issue in Australia, but I know the evidence from death row in America, after Texas started using pento-barbital; there have been huge concerns and lawsuits there. I am happy to be referred to other evidence. In some cases, the effect of the drug has been described as akin to suffocating or even as being waterboarded or drowning.
Concerns have been expressed about the use of such drugs in other jurisdictions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we should be looking at all such jurisdictions, because this is something new for us. If we are to learn from other jurisdictions where assisted dying has happened and it has been okay for people, whether that is Australia or others, it is equally right that we hear from those jurisdictions where things have not gone right or to plan. That is important.
Clause 9(2)(b) states:
“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”,
among other things,
“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.
Amendment 305 would instead require that the assessing doctor explain to and discuss with the person being assessed the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their life, including how it will bring about death and any other effects it would have in addition to death. That is really important.
There are several relevant things that patients should know if they are to be able to make an informed choice. First, they should have as clear an idea as possible what the experience of taking the lethal drug is like. In some countries where people undergo assisted dying, they swallow a cocktail of drugs. Patients whose assisted dying process did not succeed have said that the drugs are bitter tasting. If this is to be the method used in assisted death in this country, applicants should be aware of that, because some people do not take tablets—they just will not do it. If other methods are to be used, doctors should inform patients of what the experience will be like to the best of their knowledge.
The second thing assisted death applicants should know is that they may suffer complications. We know from countries and states that have assisted dying that some patients undergo complications during the process. It has been said before, but I will repeat the point, because it is really important: there can be complications. People may vomit or undergo seizures. One assisted dying recipient took 137 hours to die. That is five days and 17 hours.
We do not know the full number of patients who have died very lengthy deaths in Oregon, because the lethal drugs are self-administered, usually with no doctor present, but just because there is no report saying that things have gone wrong, it does not mean that everything has gone right. Oregon also found that at least nine patients failed to die from lethal drugs. We do not know whether that is the total number—again, because the assisted dying applicants in Oregon self-administer drugs. We can say with certainty that complications exist, although, unfortunately, gaps in the data mean that we do not know how common they are.
Amendment 306 would change the duties of a doctor present during the assisted dying process. Currently, clause 9(2)(c) states that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person
“their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance”.
If the amendment were accepted, the clause would state that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance
“including the escalation of medication intervention”.
This is a point of great importance, both for the person seeking assisted dying and the doctor, who would have to be present for the process. It would mean that the applicant and the doctor would have to think through what they wanted to happen if the applicant did develop complications. Should the doctor at a certain point act to revive an applicant—for example, if the person seemed to be suffering extreme pain as a result of a lethal drug? Alternatively, should the doctor remain as an observer and, if it were clinically possible, someone to administer further pain-relieving drugs? Not doing anything is clearly not an option. Both courses of action might seem harrowing to the person seeking assisted dying, but it is something that they should clearly discuss with the doctor, because these situations could really happen.
There are clearly no easy answers to these questions, but if applicants are to take an informed choice over assisted dying and if we want to provide autonomy, they must know that these questions exist and they must discuss them with their doctors. We have talked a lot about autonomy for people with serious illness. Those people will not have autonomy unless they are informed in accurate detail about the possible outcomes of assisted dying, and these amendments would ensure that.
Ultimately, if someone takes a drug to end their life, they will either die or not die and be left in a compromised state. Are they then escalated to A&E, because leaving them in that state is not an option for any doctor—or does the doctor proceed to administer more drugs? What does the doctor do?
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As clause 9 says, the doctor has an obligation to discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications, so that conversation would have happened with the patient. To be clear, the doctor cannot intervene to expediate the patient’s death. That is very clear in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
To be clear, it does say
“discuss with the person their wishes”.
That includes whether they would want the doctor to call an ambulance if things got complicated, or whether they would want to be left—so the doctor would discuss with the patient their wishes in that situation. Fortunately, it does not happen very often.
Naz Shah
Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier.
I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause does not set it out. In the usual sense, complications are side effects from medications. We have research and literature given to us and we understand the potential side effects. In this instance, we do not have a yardstick. I do not know whether the Minister can speak about the Government’s intentions—it would be helpful to have an impact assessment—and whether any research has been done in this area.
I am not convinced that clause 9(2)(c) actually covers this point, and I think the amendment would make the Bill much stronger. Ultimately, these drugs have not been tested—and for a very good reason, because they lead to death. We are in unchartered territory. When we are doing things that we have not done before, we cannot just pick and choose what we apply an analogy to. We need to be careful. We really need to consider the options to make this clause in particular much stronger.
Jack Abbott
I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about what may need to happen in respect of medical intervention, but I gently point out that the amendment would not cover that. It does not spell out in any way, shape or form what a medical intervention would look like. It says that there needs to be a random discussion, but it does not lay out any sense of the medical intervention. I do not see how the amendment will do what my hon. Friend is looking for.
Danny Kruger
We might appear to be dancing on a pinhead, but this goes to the heart of the question about what on earth we do in the event of complications. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley says, the Bill as drafted says that discussions should be had about wishes in the event of complications. That might simply be, “Do you want us to call somebody? Do you want us to try to make you more comfortable?” The amendment would require a discussion of escalation—what further medical interventions might be appropriate in the event of complications arising. There is a huge question for us, which we have not yet had answered, about what on earth should be the range of options for a doctor. The importance of the amendment is to specify that there may be further medical interventions in the event of complications. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the value of it?
Dr Opher
I will be brief, because I think we have discussed this enough. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Patients need to be informed about the procedure—there is no argument about that—and I approve of the first three amendments in this group.
Let me say a bit about data. I met the pharmacist from Australia who is in charge of assisted dying and he had data on 2,500 assisted dying patients. The data is clear: all the patients died—no one survived. Almost everyone immediately goes to sleep, which can be a problem, because if they do not take all the medicine, it causes a slight difficulty that I will explain in a minute. Fifty per cent died within 30 minutes, 70% within an hour and 95% within two hours. One patient survived for 21 hours because she had not taken the full dose because she fell asleep; that is a potential problem. All these things should be described, and are routinely described to patients in Australia.
The first thing, then, is that we have plenty of data. The second thing I want to say is that we are dealing with the end of life. I have sat with patients as they have died; I have sometimes seen people being a little bit sick. We know how to cope with that. We do not need to specify how we cope with someone who is dying, because we have done it many, many times. I do not think amendment 306 will add anything to the Bill because it is part of what doctors do normally.
Naz Shah
I am genuinely trying to understand and would like my hon. Friend to clarify. He says that doctors generally do this anyway, but the difference is that, in this instance, somebody has chosen to die. Generally, when doctors do anything they are trying to save patients, are they not? The general rule of thumb is that a doctor saves lives. In this instance, they are not doing that because the patient wants death.
Dr Opher
We are not doing that in situations of terminal care—we are allowing someone to die. We are very experienced in allowing people to die. I have done it for 25 years. It is not a new skill just because we have the assisted dying element. We deal with the situation as it arises.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a key point. The hon. Member for Bradford West is absolutely right: surely the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a difference between allowing somebody to die and giving them lethal drugs that make them die. I am sure he would acknowledge the practical, if not the moral, distinction between the two. He says he has lots of experience of helping people to die; has he ever had experience of watching somebody die after administering them lethal drugs? No.
Dr Opher
No, I have not, because that is currently illegal—this Committee is about changing that—but I have sat with patients who have slowly died. It is not about whether we get an ambulance; we know we do not do that. We are allowing the patient to die, and if something happens that involves having to help them, we just do it. We do not need to specify that in the Bill: it is part of normal medical practice.
Jack Abbott
I will be brief, as I have already alluded to my support. I put on the record my support for amendment 93. There has not been a lot of debate on it because it is a fairly straightforward proposal.
There has been a lot of discussion. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken in defence of the medical profession in respect of huge parts of the Bill, although they should not have to. We have of course seen occasional bad practice, as we do in all professions, but we should take a moment to reflect on the dedication, diligence, hard work and expertise of medical professionals in everything they do. This debate has on occasion almost presented this as a 50:50 choice between good doctors and bad doctors. I think we would all agree that although we want to put in the right safeguards, that is not the case at all.
I have made this point a number of times, but I do not want to accept amendments that spell out all the rules and regulations so that every doctor has to go to the nth degree all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said eloquently on a number of occasions, it is already in their codes of conduct, working practice, training and everything else. However, on occasion we cannot be satisfied that something is a given. For that reason, particularly in respect of amendments 142, 362 and perhaps 305, if we say that
“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”
must be discussed, it is not a huge leap to say that we should also spell out how it may be administered and the possible risks and complications that come with that. As I have said, I do not think it will create any unintended consequences. I do not think it puts the full rulebook on the face of the Bill. If we are stipulating how it will bring about the death, it is not a huge leap to also talk about the other side effects.
Cutting through some of the stories, and everything else we have heard this afternoon, we should be considering what the amendments seek to do—what they say on the tin, as it were. We should be asking doctors to have the conversations, although I am absolutely sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, those conversations will happen naturally anyway. I do not think there is anything harmful in the particular amendments, as we have discussed today.
Finally, on amendment 306, I understand the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire made. To be totally honest, I fail to see how the amendment satisfies the arguments they were trying to make, as powerful as those arguments are. It does not solve the issue they are looking to solve; I do not think it answers any of those questions. For that reason, I will not support amendment 306, but I am minded to support the other amendments in the group.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 93 relates to the discussion during the assessment that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to have with the person. The amendment would require that each of those doctors, during their assessment, must discuss the nature of the substance that “is to be provided” to the patient to end their life, rather than the substance that “might be provided”.
On amendment 305, clinicians in all areas are expected to work with patients to make decisions about their care and treatment as part of a shared decision-making process, including by discussing the risks, benefits and possible consequences of different options. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” states that when discussing a patient’s condition doctors must discuss with patients
“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option.”
Naz Shah
That is the very point I am struggling with. Generally speaking, the GMC guidelines are absolutely right, and doctors are saving lives and making the person better. In this instance, somebody might have complications and they might vomit, for example—that happens a lot because people are unconscious. What does the clinician then do? Do they proceed with an assisted death, or do they get the person into A&E? I am trying to understand the answer to that question, and I hope the Minister can respond.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will know that the Bill states that the assessing doctor must discuss with the individual
“their wishes in the event of complications”,
which could include medical interventions. What is also absolutely clear is that the Bill precludes the doctor from making any intervention, vis-à-vis the patient, that may lead to the patient’s death. The Bill is based on self-administration, not on administration by the doctor. By definition, the actions that can be taken by the doctor are things like calling an ambulance; they would not be things like escalating the substance that has been used in order to bring about the death of the patient. I hope that is clear to my hon. Friend.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Minister for that explanation. What happens if the patient sets out in advance that they want no interventions? What if they have said, under the clause as the Minister laid out, “In the event of complications, if I am vomiting and in distress, I want no interventions”, but when that happens the pain and distress are at a different level and they are begging the doctor to help them? What does the doctor do in that instance?
Stephen Kinnock
The key point, and what takes primacy above all else, is the professional judgment of the doctor. I commend the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich about every doctor in the profession; he reinforced the point about the immense skill, professionalism and judgment of clinicians and medical professionals across the length and breadth of our country. Clearly, in a crisis situation such as the one the hon. Lady described, the professional judgment of the doctor would kick in and they would take whatever action is necessary. If a patient stipulated what they wanted to happen in the event of complications and something like the hon. Lady just described were to happen, I do not think the doctor would accept those conditions.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for that clarity. Does he think it would be worth while setting that out in more detail, in order to protect doctors and make it really clear what would happen in such a situation? This would be an unprecedented, unique and very new process, and I can imagine substantial moral injury to doctors from being put in that predicament if we are not very clear about what they are required to do and what they are required not to do.
Stephen Kinnock
The basic position of the Department of Health and Social Care and, by extension, the Government is that we rely on and trust our medical professionals to make judgments and do the right thing. They take the Hippocratic oath, so they are going to do what is right for the patient in the circumstances of their interaction with that patient. That is set out in guidance and in the corpus of law that we already have. There is a risk of destabilising the system by introducing measures that may well cause confusion and muddy the waters when the waters do not need to be muddied.
Danny Kruger
I am afraid that the waters are pretty muddied by the Bill. It states a direct contradiction of the Hippocratic oath, which requires doctors to save people’s lives and do nothing to bring about their death—including giving them lethal drugs. It is right there in the Hippocratic oath. There is obviously a real challenge if somebody has had assisted death drugs and then exhibits complications—if they are not dying quickly, for example, or are showing distress. Normally, the obligation on a doctor would be to relieve their symptoms and try to bring them back to life. Is the Minister saying that is what they should do—and if not, what should they do?
Stephen Kinnock
There is a debate to be had about the Bill’s effect on support for a patient. I am not here as a member of the Government to comment on the rights and wrongs of that, but those who support the Bill would argue that a doctor participating in and facilitating assisted dying is actually helping the patient and is, therefore, absolutely aligned with the Hippocratic oath, which is to do no harm. That is in the eye of the beholder, as I am sure the hon. Member would agree, and it is not my job to get into the whys and wherefores of the philosophy that underpins the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
I will do so with huge pleasure—thank you, Ms McVey—but I would be more than happy to take up that discussion with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire at another time.
On amendment 142, it is worth noting that options for the method of administration of the substance may change if a patient’s condition alters as they progress through the process set out in the Bill.
Amendment 362 would add to the list of matters that must be discussed at the first and second assessments by the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require the assessing doctor to include an explanation and discussion of not only how the approved substance will bring about death, as set out in the Bill as drafted, but the risk and nature of any possible complications, including pain. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” already states that doctors must discuss with a patient
“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option”
when discussing their condition.
As it stands, the Bill specifies that the assessing doctor must discuss the individual’s
“wishes in the event of complications”,
which could include medical interventions. However, amendment 306 would go further and specify that medical intervention must be discussed.
I hope those observations were helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
I will start with amendment 93 tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. He made a really important point about the language in the clause, and I am very happy to support the amendment.
It is quite clear that, across the Committee, there is no disagreement that a terminally ill person requesting assistance to shorten their death should be given all the information necessary to help them make the clear, informed and settled decision the Bill requires. That should include an explanation of the drugs that are likely to be used—bearing in mind that there may be more than one option available to the person when the time comes, depending on their medical circumstances—and how they would be administered. As such, I am minded to support amendment 142, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendments 142 and 93 both provide helpful clarity for the Bill.
There are good intentions behind amendments 305, 306 and 362, but I am confident that they are already covered by clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c). I do, however, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of side effects. Going forward, it might be helpful to look at that use of language. To conclude, I am minded to support amendments 93 and 142.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
You will be delighted to learn that I have nothing further to add to this debate, Ms McVey.
Amendment 93 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 305, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “about death” insert
“and any other effects in addition to death.”—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment would require the assessing doctor to explain effects the provided substance would have in addition to death.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 307, in clause 9, page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to “advise” and insert
“unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests.”
This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 308, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(g) If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 307 and would require a decision that it is not in the person’s best interests to inform their next of kin to be documented with its reasoning.
Danny Kruger
Amendments 307 and 308 concern the question of who should be informed when an application has been made or when an assisted death has been approved, and at what stage it is appropriate for family members or next of kin to be informed. During the debate on clause 8, we discussed whether a patient should be asked to state whether they have informed their family.
I think it is appropriate to have a stronger requirement for doctors to notify a patient’s next of kin. Amendment 307 would remove the phrase
“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,”
leaving that they should
“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin”.
Amendment 308 is either supplementary to amendment 307 or could work in isolation, because it states:
“If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”
These are important amendments because they communicate the truth that it is not just the patient who is affected by an assisted death; I suggest that others are affected. Conversely, behind that apparently autonomous individual patient, who might think they are acting with absolute autonomy and without reference to others, there may somebody who is exercising undue influence on them.
To me, these amendments speak to the essential tension at the heart of the Bill: whether we are talking about isolated individuals or recognising the reality that no man or woman is an island. We are all connected and we all have obligations, whether as a society to the people who will be involved in the administration of the procedure or, more directly and obviously, to family members or to the patient themselves, to be sure they are not subject to undue influence. There are many ways to try to identify undue influence, but one important one that would be addressed by this amendment is the opportunity to involve a person’s wider family in the discussions leading up to their assisted death.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The amendment that the hon. Member is supporting speaks of a doctor having to consider what is
“in the person’s best interests”,
which is wholly subjective. Does he not agree that the same difficulties he identifies with the current drafting are extrapolated greatly by the amendment?
Danny Kruger
I am afraid there is a huge degree of subjectivity throughout the Bill, and we are putting an enormous obligation on doctors to use their best judgment. However, I think it is right to stipulate more clearly that it is appropriate, in general, to inform patients’ families. Leaving the vague term “appropriate” essentially implies that it is either/or—that it is a 50:50 choice whether they do so. So it is important to specify that the expectation is that they should do so. Of course, there will be circumstances in which that would not be the right thing to do, but as the amendments make clear, they should explain that clearly if they are not going to do so.
A doctor might hesitate to suggest a discussion with family if they suspect that there are strained relationships within it. My concern is that, without clear guidance, that judgment could be inconsistent or legally challenged. The doctor might know the next of kin and believe that they would try to stop the patient from ending their life. We have heard quite often the concern about the family being some sort of coercive force, trying to prevent people from fulfilling their autonomous choice to end their life, and that we should put in place barriers to stop families trying to dissuade their loved one from assisted suicide. We heard that repeatedly, particularly from the Australian witnesses.
My concern—this goes specifically to certain communities within our country—is that doctors from individualistic cultures, which we have in western Europe and North America, would prioritise personal autonomy. They would deem it inappropriate to suggest family involvement, viewing that as an intrusion on the patient’s rights. We need to state clearly that that is not the expectation and that the expectation is that they should consider involving the family in the discussion.
My concern is also about an exaggerated respect for medical confidentiality. As the Committee knows, my belief is that this is not a healthcare treatment at all, but if it is to be regarded as such, we should not assume that medical confidentiality applies in an absolute sense. There are specific differences between this so-called medical treatment and others, which do justify an override of the assumption of total medical confidentiality. It is therefore appropriate, as in certain other medical procedures, that family members should be involved.
I want to cite the written evidence from Dr Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai, who pointed out that clause 9
“lays bare the reality that in trying to, rightly, diminish any accusation of coercion or family disagreement, this Bill will lead many to a lonely death.”
She also said:
“Families/loved ones finding out only after the event how the person died will have its own bereavement issues that this Bill in no way seeks to consider.”
I also cite the written evidence we had from AtaLoss, which is a UK charity dedicated to ensuring that bereaved people can access support. It said that discovering the decision that somebody has had help to take their own life without prior warning
“can replicate the distress often associated with sudden or suicide-related deaths, thereby intensifying bereavement trauma and potential suicide contagion.”
That is a very significant threat. We will not rehash the argument about whether suicide increases in countries with assisted suicide, but my strong view, from the evidence, is that it does.
In terms of the patient’s safety, if the process is kept secret even from those who know the patient well, the assessing doctors and the panel will be asking very difficult questions about the patient’s feelings and circumstances partly blindfolded. If a patient is in a controlling relationship, they and the person abusing them are not going to volunteer to the doctor or the panel that there is any pressure going on—indeed, the patient may not even understand it to be pressure. It is very common for an abusive partner to try to isolate the victim from their close friends and family. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) wrote recently about how this has come up in her constituency. The ex-husband of her constituent’s sister reappeared on the scene, charmed and isolated this woman, and got her to change her will in his favour. That is a technique of coercive control. Some level of required notification to the wider family would make it much harder for a controlling partner to push someone through this process without it being exposed.
It was made clear earlier today that the Bill’s supporters do not want any hard-edged reasons that count as bad reasons to die to be stated in the Bill—they do not want it asked at all why someone wants to have an assisted death. As it stands, the doctors and the panel would have to approve the death as long as it was the patient’s clear, settled and informed wish, but involvement of those who know the patient well might demonstrate that it was not clear, settled or informed. They may have regularly gone through patches of feeling unloved and unsupported all their life, and that could change. That is information that only the wider family would know.
To conclude, there is real suffering hereto—as I have said, nobody exists in a vacuum. I want to reference the opinion of Judge Elósegui in the European Court of Human Rights. Her opinion was a partial dissent in the Mortier case, which has been discussed before. She said:
“it should be underlined that it cannot be said in an exhaustive way that the principle of autonomy always and at all costs has primacy over the other three principles of bioethics. In particular, we must take into account the consequences of our actions on the rest of the family unit and on our circle of friends.”
That is highly relevant. If we see cases where somebody dies by assisted suicide, and the first thing their child or parent knows about it is they are told to come and collect the body, that will be a scandal. That has happened in other countries, and the Mortier case is a case in point.
I mentioned other cases in which it is obligatory to consult and inform family members. At the moment, that is what happens at the Court of Protection with much less serious applications. Practice directive 9B requires doctors to notify
“at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified”.
That is in the case of organ donation and other procedures. Families are required to be notified, and an indicative list is given, which is supposed to be worked through in order—spouses, people who live with as a spouse, parents, children and so on. The authorities are to jump along through that list, again with some discretion given to them.
To end, on the standard guidance referred to in judgments on that procedure, the judgement of Senior Judge Lush in the Court of Human Rights included the observation that the decision not to notify someone who would otherwise be entitled to be notified is not something that just affects the applicant. It is not just about their interests; there is a wider concern for the whole of society and indeed the family. That is why I support the amendment.
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central for tabling the amendment. The crucial word that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said in all that was “should”. It is really important that people are strongly encouraged to discuss this with their families. Clause 9(2)(f) states that
“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”
I totally support all that the hon. Member said: the family should always be involved in every decision. However, in the way we practice medicine in this country, if a patient has capacity—if they are not under a section under the Mental Health Act, for example, and can show that they have capacity—they can make decisions about their own healthcare. That involves whether they tell their family.
I agree that not to tell the family is not the best thing and not something I would say that the patient should do, but that is in their remit. It is important because, if we change that, we get rid of all the basis and the foundation of medical care and consent in this country. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member, and I am a strong supporter of the family—I also think that in almost every situation the family will be involved—but the patient does not have to tell the family. That must remain part of their decision.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I am torn by this amendment. I absolutely accept that it is the right, the autonomy, of an individual to make the decisions and to have confidentiality when making those decisions, but I will touch on a few things that I have said previously.
First, briefly, I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about coercion. Secondly, however, there are two other aspects. Let me go back to something I have talked long and hard about, which is learning disability. One amendment has been accepted and I hope more are to come, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, in that scenario, someone might have to be helped by the doctor to make the decision, because of their level of capacity. When I have made the argument throughout our debates, that has never ever been doubted. The person who has been helped to make that decision may have decided, because they are a burden on their elderly parents, that they will not inform them. Again, that was the rationale of where I got to on Second Reading, frankly.
I see people with elderly parents, often now in their 70s or 80s, who have cared for that person throughout their life. As the Bill and the Mental Capacity Act are laid out, that person could go to the doctor to say, “I do not want my parents to know. I hear what you say, doctor, but under this provision of the Act”—clause 9 of the Bill—“I am not going to tell them.” Under the Mental Capacity Act, if the doctor had any queries about the capacity of that person to make those decisions, that doctor would have to assist them in making them. Let us be clear that that is what the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for, and that is what the code of practice says.
Danny Kruger
As ever, the hon. Gentleman speaks very powerfully. Does he acknowledge that under the amendments, and under the Bill, it would be possible for a patient to proceed without informing their wider family, if they and the doctor conclude that it is not appropriate or necessary? The value of the amendments is that they would require a conversation to be had about why that is not happening. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that such a conversation would be appropriate?
Daniel Francis
That is what I have wrestled with. That conversation will happen, and at the end of it, I accept that the autonomy is with the individual, who may well make a decision that they believe is for the best but with which their loved one does not necessarily agree. I think there are examples from overseas of that having happened.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I agree about the primacy of autonomy, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the status quo and the many stories that we have heard about individuals who took their lives but kept it secret from their families, whether by going to Switzerland or by doing it in a horrible way in lonely circumstances, a regulated atmosphere would makes it more likely that people will talk to their family about what their death will be like and, as we have learned from overseas, make arrangements for their family to be around them, or at least to say goodbye, as they move into that process? At the moment, because this area is unregulated, way more people do it in secret than need to.
Daniel Francis
I am not entirely persuaded. I think there is currently a mixture of cases, and there will potentially be a mixture of cases in future. I hear what the right hon. Member says, but my primary concern is about the way things are. As I say, I am minded not to support the amendments on balance, but I am concerned that we could end up hearing stories about someone’s loved one of 50 years, or their child with a learning disability, having had an assisted death—and the first they knew about it was when it was too late.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey.
I feel that we are dancing on the head of a pin, but I oppose the amendment. Members across the debate have recognised that, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, it is always for the patient to decide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley pointed out, both the original clause and the amendment rightly retain that decision with the patient. They also retain the discretion of the doctor, whether that is on an appropriate test or a best interests test.
I note that in its submission the Royal College of Physicians advocated the removal of the clause, saying that it goes beyond current practice. I support the clause on balance, because of the importance of these conversations and so on, but the physicians who are likely to carry out the conversations think that it is inappropriate to specify these conversations in primary legislation.
There are two phrases in the amendment that I think are entirely inappropriate. First, there is “concluded in good faith”. I am sure it is not the intent of the author and mover of the amendment, but it suggests that in other instances people might be acting other than in good faith. I commend the words from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We have to start from the point that doctors are operating in good faith. It is dangerous to set up a good faith test, as opposed to an “other faith” test, in primary legislation.
Secondly, I am certainly not trying to reopen the long debates we had about the Mental Capacity Act, but Members will recall that in those debates we were very clear that the “best interests” test should not and does not apply. Introducing language about best interests the first time in the Bill is very dangerous, and totally against the spirit and principle of what we have debated so far. For those reasons, I am against both amendments.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has made many of the points that I planned to, so I will be brief. The primacy of patient autonomy when it comes to familial relationships is a principle that should not be interfered with in the medical sphere, which this is—we can call it treatment or something else, but it is undoubtedly a relationship between a doctor and a person.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the term “good faith”. I do not doubt the motives, but it put forwards the proposition that a doctor would act in bad faith and not tell a family member. It is a rather bizarre drafting, and wholly unhelpful for the intent for which it was put forward.
The most alarming is the second part and the issue of “best interests”. I will not labour the point that my hon. Friend has made, but what is a doctor to do? A doctor is not a social worker. A doctor is not a family support worker. What questions are they to ask? If someone says, “Oh, I don’t really want to tell my next of kin, who is my sister. We fell out last year because of tit for tat,” is the doctor going to make a value judgment as to whether that argument is profound enough to stop the notification?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The point that the hon. Member makes is, I think, exactly the case—raising this conversation and talking about it is probably not in anyone’s best interests in the first instance. I think about my own situation. If I were to find myself terminally ill and falling within the scope of this law, and my mum had passed away, then my dad, who I have not spoken to in over a decade, with whom I have a very difficult and estranged relationship, would have to be notified and we would have to have a conversation about it. On my deathbed, the last thing I want to be thinking about is some childhood trauma being brought back before me in the confines of that terminal illness. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the intention might be good, the consequences could be damaging to the patient and their best interests?
Jake Richards
I agree. I think in some of these debates—I am probably guilty of this as well—we forget the context in which we are operating: someone is dying, imminently. Therefore, how we approach these conversations, these assessments and this process must take that into account.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman accurately points out that doctors are not social workers or psychiatrists, and we are asking them to make a difficult judgment, in consultation with the patient, about whether they should engage wider family in the discussion. That goes to the broader point: we are imposing a huge obligation on doctors to make very complicated decisions about capacity, coercion and the psychosocial circumstances of the patient. The value of this amendment’s saying, “I think we should involve the family if it is safe to do so”—it might very well not be in certain circumstances—is surely to assist them in having the wider conversation that is necessary.
Jake Richards
As we heard in evidence from the chief medical officer, doctors deal with capacity issues on a day-to-day basis; I am not sure they necessarily need assistance from family members in that regard. However, I appreciate the point—I was going to come to that—
Jake Richards
I am going to make some progress, because I am not sure that point is crucial to the debate about this amendment; I am sure my hon. Friend will grab me afterwards. I did not mean to mischaracterise the evidence on that point.
I accept that there is a tension here. No man is an island, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire notes, and of course this process may cause upset to others. Equally, the input of third parties to the assessment of all the issues of eligibility is worth while, but it has to be dealt with in a proportionate way. When we debate clause 12—hopefully shortly—perhaps we can discuss that, and I hope to speak to that point.
However, this amendment is trying to crack that delicate nut with a huge hammer. It fundamentally changes the relationship between doctor and patient, and puts the doctor in a position where they do not have the skills or expertise to make that best interest decision. The amendment therefore fails, and that is why I will vote against it.
Rebecca Paul
I am concerned that maybe I am misunderstanding the debate. For clarity, right now clause 9 says that
“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,”
they should
“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”
It will read very similarly if the amendment is agreed to. Instead, it will say,
“unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to”.
That is a very subtle change—it is just a little more encouragement to consider contacting the family. No one here is telling the doctor that they must tell the patient to contact the family; it is just a little bit of strengthening to encourage that. I invite the hon. Gentleman to confirm if I have misinterpreted, but that is my understanding of the clause.
Jake Richards
I will double check whether this is right, but the explanatory statement suggests that that is not the case. It says:
“This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.”
Jake Richards
Even if that is not what it says, and even if the explanatory statement is wrong, it is not appropriate for doctors to advise patients what they should do with their family. Yes, they should consider it, but that is what this clause does. I will be voting against this amendment.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendments relate to whether the assessing doctor advises the person seeking assistance to end their own life to discuss that with their next of kin and other persons they are close to. Amendment 307 would change the test that the assessing doctor must apply before advising a person to consider doing so. The current test, as set out in clause 9(2)(f), is that
“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,”
they must
“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”
The effect of amendment 307 is that the assessing doctor must advise the person to consider discussing their request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to, unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith that it would not be in the person’s best interests to do so. It should be noted that the amendment as drafted would not require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin, although there is some confusion, as that appears to be what is suggested by the explanatory statement.
Amendment 308 is consequential to amendment 307 and requires that
“If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”
I hope those observations were helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing to add, other than that I will not be supporting amendments 307 and 308. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley, for Stroud and for Sunderland Central.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—
(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;
(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.
(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.
Amendment 415, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) When making an assessment under subsection (2), the assessing doctor must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters.”—(Jack Abbott.)
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.—(Sarah Olney.)
This amendment would require the assessing doctor to refer the person being assessed for a mental capacity assessment if the assessing doctor had doubt as to the person’s capacity.
Amendment 370, in clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out
“registered in the specialism of psychiatry”
and insert
“a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms”.
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Another independent doctor: second opinion
Amendments made: 203, in clause 10, page 6, line 42, at end insert—
“(A1) This section applies where the independent doctor has—
(a) carried out the second assessment, and
(b) made a report stating that they are not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 421.
Amendment 204, in clause 10, page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 44.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 203.
Amendment proposed: 458, in clause 10, page 6, line 45, after “declaration” insert “and if there has been a material change of circumstances,”.—(Sarah Olney.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 205, in clause 10, page 7, line 11, at end insert
“; but this is subject to subsection (4).
(4) Where—
(a) a referral is made under subsection (1) to a practitioner,
(b) the practitioner dies or through illness is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor, and
(c) no report under section 8 has been made by virtue of the referral,
a further referral may be made under subsection (1).”.
This amendment provides that a further referral may be made under this clause where a practitioner dies or is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor due to illness.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak briefly to this small amendment, which provides that a further referral be made under clause 10 when a practitioner dies or is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor due to illness. In the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who has agreed to give a second opinion dies or—because of illness or whatever reason—is unable to continue before making a report into the case, it would be right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. I hope the Committee will support my amendment 205.
Stephen Kinnock
This is one of the amendments on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to ensure that the Bill is legally robust and workable. As the Bill is currently drafted, in clause 11 there is provision to replace a registered medical practitioner acting as the co-ordinating doctor if they become ill or die. However, there is no similar provision to replace a registered medical practitioner acting as the independent doctor should they be unable to complete their role.
Amendment 205 makes provision under clause 10 that a further referral may be made by the co-ordinating doctor to another independent doctor if the second independent doctor becomes unable or unwilling to continue to make a report of their assessment due to their death or illness, provided that the second independent doctor has not prepared a report. It would thereby ensure internal consistency in the Bill in relation to this matter.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I reiterate the concern I raised when speaking to my amendments this morning: as far as I can see, seeking the second opinion of a second independent doctor allows the person seeking assisted suicide to have a second bite at the cherry if their first independent doctor has not granted permission. I do not think anyone has an objection to going to a second independent doctor if the first independent doctor has been unable, through either death or illness, to complete the task; nor is there any objection if there has been a material change of circumstances, which my amendment 458 sought to add.
However, the possibility of seeking the view of another doctor simply because the first one did not give the desired answer is a troubling one. There is no objection to patients seeking a second, third or even fourth opinion in medicine when it is about what different treatment pathways might be available, but there is a crucial difference between seeking different appropriate treatment options and what is being proposed in the Bill. In the Bill, the function of the two doctors is not primarily diagnostic or advisory; it is a safeguarding role.
The doctors will have been entrusted by Parliament to make sure that the criteria for assisted dying are met. Their determination makes the difference between a lawful act and the commission of an act that, as per clause 24, Parliament would still regard as sufficiently serious to be a crime. Their role is therefore that of a decision maker, and in no other setting can someone go to a different decision maker if they do not like the answer given by the first. Even in appeals before our courts, an appellate judge would not interfere with a decision simply because they would have reached a different conclusion; the appellate judge must consider that the decision was in some way incorrectly reached.
It is also true that in some settings one can ask a decision maker to reconsider a matter, but that is not what is being proposed in clause 10 either. Instead, the clause allows the person to try again with a different referee if the first one did not give the desired answer. It is true that there is an added layer of protection from the High Court or the possibility of a panel, but under the Bill as it currently is there is no procedure whereby the High Court or the panel will hear from the first independent doctor. That is concerning. They would have to go simply on the basis of the second independent doctor, without any awareness of why the two disagreed.
Lewis Atkinson
I fear that the point the hon. Lady is making relates to before her amendment 459 was accepted. Does she not agree that by accepting amendment 459, we have guarded against the first independent assessment not being available for subsequent decision makers?
Sarah Olney
I am not used to my amendments being accepted. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right.
Dr Matthew Doré, the palliative medicine consultant and honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said in written evidence:
“Allowing patients to seek multiple opinions undermines procedural integrity. Furthermore, allowing the coordinating doctor to seek multiple opinions even further undermines the selection of doctors willing to provide AD”—
that is, assisted dying. He goes on:
“The lack of a centralised tracking system facilitates ‘doctor shopping’.”
Notwithstanding the fact that amendment 459 has now been accepted, there is still grave concern about the possibility of doctor shopping. We should take steps to avoid it. That is why I am speaking against clause 10 in its entirety.
Under clause 8, the independent doctor has five matters to verify: that the person is terminally ill; that they have capacity; that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life; that they are acting voluntarily and without coercion or pressure; and they are over 18. The last requirement is unlikely ever to be in any form of doubt, so I will focus on the other four. The effect of clause 10 is to allow someone to be assisted to die when one out of three doctors who examined them had concluded that they were not terminally ill, that they lacked capacity, that they did not have a settled wish to die or they were coerced. It therefore raises a real risk that someone not actually eligible for assisted dying would none the less be so assisted. In such matters of life and death, we ought to proceed with great caution.
Doctors can get things wrong, of course. If the first independent doctor did get it completely wrong, I would have no objection to the second independent doctor effectively acting as a form of appeal—or, to borrow the test from the law of medical negligence, if the first independent doctor reached a conclusion not supported by a reasonable body of medical opinion, of course it would be right for that opinion to be disregarded. But that is not what the Bill provides for, which is not an appeal or reconsideration but picking a new referee simply because the first answer was not desired.
I still have misgivings about clause 10 notwithstanding the fact that it has been amended. I urge other Committee members to vote against it. I appreciate your indulgence, Ms McVey.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak against clause 10 as it allows doctor shopping in the event that someone does not qualify for assisted dying. “Not happy with the verdict? Just find another doctor!” How many times are we happy for a patient to try again with a different doctor? It is inevitable that at some point the patient will find someone willing to make the statement and put them on their way to an assisted death, even if their eligibility is in doubt.
When I put forward the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which requested residual discretion for doctors, they were challenged by Committee members on the basis that the whole point of having defined criteria was so that they determined whether a patient was eligible. I run the same argument now: if the process is followed to the hilt and the independent doctor refuses to issue the statement, why on earth would we allow another bite—or even multiple further bites—at the cherry? Surely that is to allow abusers a way to push their victims into an assisted death by re-running the process again and again until they find a less attuned doctor.
Imagine the case of an elderly woman who has spent a lifetime under the coercive control of her husband. She is completely done with it all, and sees death as a welcome way to escape this man, who has made her life a misery. The abuse has escalated since she has become ill: because of her ill health, she cannot cook or clean any more, and he hates that. But no one sees. She never wanted the kids to know; she is really good at hiding it. Now, he wants to seek an assisted death, because it is better for them all. She agrees. When asked by a doctor, she is unlikely to say, “My husband is pressuring me into this, and I’m afraid of not doing what he wants,” particularly if she has suffered abuse over many years.
Let us say that the first independent doctor does a really thorough job—the kind of job that we hope all doctors would do. Perhaps the doctor manages to discern that the patient is very much controlled and unduly influenced by her husband. The trouble is that it can be very difficult to find hard evidence of coercive control. According to recent figures, only 3.7% of recorded cases of controlling or coercive behaviour result in a charge, and more than half of cases are dropped because of evidential difficulties. The doctor therefore cannot get the police to intervene; his only lever is the power to reject the application. So that is what he does. But the patient does not give up; she is still absolutely sure that the best thing is an assisted death, and her abuser is still whispering in her ear, telling her she is right.
The second independent doctor does not have the same emotional intelligence as the first, and he does not see what the first doctor saw. He approves the application.
Lewis Atkinson
This is a similar point to the one I made before: amendment 459, which we have just passed, means that, in the scenario that the hon. Lady describes, the second independent doctor will have in their possession the first independent doctor’s concerns about coercion. Does she not agree?
Rebecca Paul
I will come to that exact point shortly.
Members of the Committee will recall that I previously tried to get “undue influence” and “encouragement” added to the Bill explicitly to deal with more subtle forms of influence and pressure, as opposed to those that are more obvious to third parties. When objecting to my amendments, the Minister said that they were unnecessary, because “coercion or pressure” already covered them. I hope that the Minister is proven to be correct.
The key point is that those forms of behaviour are not always easily discernible. Dr Mullock told us in oral evidence that
“the kind of undue influence that might occur might be very subtle. More needs to be done to recognise that and the subtle encouragement that might take place, where a relative might frame their support for the person seeking to die in terms of, ‘This will be better for you,’ and, ‘Have you considered this?’ That is not necessarily an example of clear abuse, so when the person seeking to die then consults the doctor, they are not going to characterise what has happened to them as coercion or abuse. More needs to be done to discuss with the person whether or not they have been encouraged by the people around them.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 162, Q204.]
These are the very real consequences of this clause, which undermines the independent doctor safeguard. In written evidence, Mr Michael Vidal hits the nail on the head:
“It seems to negate the purpose of having a second opinion if the second opinion can be ignored and a fresh second opinion obtained.”
I recognise and welcome the fact that amendment 459 has been accepted. It would mean that the second independent doctor would have the benefit of the report of the first independent doctor. However, this is not a failsafe protection and cannot be relied on entirely. First, the report of the first independent doctor is required to be made available to the patient. In a case such as this, would the first doctor want to spell out exactly what led to that conclusion, knowing that it could place the patient in harm’s way if her husband saw it? Also, he is not 100% sure; does he want to make such accusations in writing without hard evidence?
Secondly, even if the report was detailed and available to the second independent doctor, he would still need to make his own assessment, and he might not agree. Or it could be that although he recognises signs of coercion over a long period, he may truly believe that, to the best of his knowledge, the decision made by the patient has not been coerced in that moment.
I am afraid therefore that clause 10 is a loophole that will be exploited by domestic abusers, and it is largely women who will pay the price. For that reason, I cannot support it.
Lewis Atkinson
I was not going to speak to this clause, but I feel I must rebut some of the points made, which are clearly incorrect. The hon. Member for Reigate asks how many further opinions there will be; the answer is clearly one, because that is what is set out in the Bill. The safeguards in amendment 459 mean that it is not just the second doctor who will be aware of the first doctor’s concerns; any subsequent decision maker will be.
We are about to discuss significant amendments in clause 12. However, whether there is a panel or the decision remains with a High Court judge, it is inconceivable that, when presented with an initial assessment that the criteria are not met and a subsequent assessment that disagrees with it, that third-tier decision maker will not want to explore the issues in detail. I believe that all Committee members are trying to work together in a spirit of genuinely improving the legislation, but our arguments and discussions need to reflect the amendments that we have accepted. Clause 10, as amended, is significantly improved and strengthened. It continues to provide significant safeguards for the Bill, and I am happy to support it.
Amendment 205 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 461, in clause 11, page 7, line 15, leave out “or otherwise”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 310, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert
“and
(c) to ensure the High Court is notified of the substitution of the coordinating doctor and the reason for the substitution.”
This amendment would include ensuring the High Court is notified of substitutions of the coordinating doctor in the list of matters the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for.
Amendment 309, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision to require the reassessment of the patient under section 7.”
This amendment would require a regulations covering the replacement of the coordinating doctor to include a reassessment of the person by the new coordinating doctor.
Clause stand part.
Sarah Olney
The amendment would remove the phrase “or otherwise” in the clause. All I am proposing is for the wording to be consistent with amendment 205 to clause 10, which has just been agreed. It does not specify “or otherwise”, but simply uses the words,
“the practitioner dies or through illness is unable or unwilling”.
What might “otherwise” incorporate? It indicates that there might be a range of reasons beyond death or illness why the co-ordinating doctor would drop out. In many ways, I am trying to probe what the other reasons might be. If there are no other reasons, and consistent with amendment 205 that we have just agreed, we should drop the phrase “or otherwise”.
Danny Kruger
I want to speak briefly in support of the hon. Lady’s amendment and also in support of amendment 310, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is absolutely right. I will not rehearse her argument, which is very straightforward. The question is: what other reason could there be to justify a co-ordinating doctor transferring the case? The Committee might reject that amendment, in which case I hope they will accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which specifies that whatever the reason, particularly if it is other than death or illness, it is important for the High Court or the panel to be notified of the substitution and the reason why.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Maternity leave is one reason and retirement might be another.
Danny Kruger
Those might be appropriate reasons; I hope that can be specified. The crucial thing is that if there is an unwillingness—not an incapacity but an unwillingness—to proceed, that is of some concern. It is not that they are no longer able to do it—possibly for the reasons that the hon. Lady suggested—but if there is an actual unwillingness to proceed, what is the reason?
On amendment 309, if the first doctor is replaced for whatever reason, surely it is imperative that the new doctor conduct their own assessment, rather than taking the previous doctor’s word for it. A doctor is legally responsible, obliged under all medical regulation and law for their actions, and they cannot rely on a previous assessment. If the first doctor gave up the case because of some kind of incapacity—an illness, or, indeed, their demise—it might be that their own judgment was impaired at the time. I would have thought it was obvious that the new doctor should take responsibility for conducting an assessment and proceeding with full responsibility for the case.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 309 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment proposes that if a doctor changes, there should be a reassessment of the patient. My understanding is that that is in line with current practice: if a doctor is changed, the new doctor has to assess a patient to their own satisfaction because they cannot rely on just looking at notes. It is a sensitive issue where a doctor is required to make objective and subjective assessments, as has been agreed by the Committee to date, in clinical decision making. A clinician does not inherit the risk of another clinician without being satisfied themselves that the conclusion of another clinician aligns with their own.
For instance, the clinician has a responsibility to fulfil their own professional standards and their own duty of care. In the light of the significant impact of the decision, it is important that the doctor can be satisfied as they will need to consent to a patient having capacity and not being coerced. They cannot just take the word of another clinician who has managed the case before them. They themselves need to be satisfied. If a doctor does not do that and something goes wrong, and it comes to light that the patient did not have capacity, the clinician who is the new co-ordinating doctor would carry liability. It does not stand up if they say, “But someone else assessed that the patient had capacity” or, “Someone else said that the patient had not been coerced” if it comes to light later that they have.
This measure would therefore protect the clinician and ensure that the patient understood that a further assessment would need to take place. Having this measure in law would hopefully dissuade doctors from transferring their patients unless absolutely necessary for the continuity of care. It would also dissuade the clinician from taking on a new case if they were aware that continuity of care would be disrupted, due to, for example, a move.
Stephen Kinnock
This set of amendments relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to make provision, by regulations, for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they are unable to continue to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor.
I will turn first to amendment 461. Clause 11, as currently drafted, provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to make regulations that provide for cases
“where, after a first declaration has been witnessed by the coordinating doctor, that doctor dies or through illness or otherwise is unable or unwilling to continue”.
Amendment 461 removes the “or otherwise”. The effect could be to limit scenarios in which the Secretary of State could make provision via regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor. The Secretary of State could not provide for replacing the co-ordinating doctor in circumstances other than a doctor’s death or illness, which could include family issues or retirement. That would mean that the person seeking an assisted death may need to begin the process again.
Amendment 310 expands the list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. That includes notifying the High Court of substitutions of the co-ordinating doctor, where the co-ordinating doctor is unable to continue to carry out their functions. It should be noted that clause 11 confers only a power, not a duty, on the Secretary of State to make regulations about replacing the co-ordinating doctor. It is not certain that the matter of a substitution of the doctor would be covered in those regulations.
The explanatory statement for amendment 309 suggests that the amendment aims to ensure that a replacement co-ordinating doctor is required to carry out a new assessment of the patient—in other words, to repeat the first assessment made under clause 7. The amendment requires that the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) make provision for such cases. Although the Secretary of State has a power to make regulations to provide that the co-ordinating doctor be replaced by another doctor, that is not a requirement. The amendment assumes that there will be a replacement co-ordinating doctor, which is not a specific requirement of the legislation.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak briefly about amendment 461. A co-ordinating doctor is central to the whole process set out in the Bill, from start to finish. If a co-ordinating doctor becomes unavailable, a replacement would need to be found. There may be a number of reasons, not restricted to the doctor’s own death or illness, why that could happen. We have already heard a few examples—it could be retirement, maternity leave or anything going on in that doctor’s personal life. A close family member might fall ill or die, or something else might happen in the doctor’s life that forces them to withdraw. We have talked a lot about patient autonomy, quite rightly, but we need to think about the autonomy of the doctors involved in the process as well. It is therefore important that they have the ability to step away, as set out in clause 11. Additionally, I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about amendments 309 and 310. It feels as though those amendments do not necessarily do what was intended.
Sarah Olney
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 206, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)
See the statement for Amendment 188.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Francis
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 12, page 8, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4A) Rules of Court must secure that in relation to an application under subsection (1), the High Court must—
(a) prescribe a procedure which in relation to each application appoints a person (the Official Solicitor in cases in brought in England and Wales) to act as advocate to the Court,
(b) hear from and question, in person—
(i) the person who made the application for the declaration,
(ii) the coordinating doctor,
(iii) the independent doctor, and
(c) consider hearing from and questioning, in person—
(i) persons properly interested in the welfare of the person who made the application for the declaration and other persons they are close to, and
(ii) any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness.”
This amendment would require court rules to be made that would ensure an adversarial court process, by appointing an advocate to the court. It would also require them to hear from the person seeking assistance to end their life and both assessing doctors, and to consider also hearing from family members and others involved in the person’s care.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 407, in clause 12, page 8, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the High Court to hear from and question the person who made the application for the declaration.
Amendment 410, in clause 12, page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (6).
The amendment would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application for the declaration and the assessing doctors.
Amendment 106, in clause 12, page 8, line 30, leave out “(5)” and insert “(4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 105.
Amendment 107, in clause 12, page 8, line 44, leave out “(4)” and insert “(4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 105.
Daniel Francis
I will withdraw amendment 105 later, but will speak to it briefly, as my name is on it. The amendment aims to require court rules to be made that would ensure an adversarial court process, by appointing an advocate to the court. It would also require them to hear from the person seeking assistance to end their life and both assessing doctors, and to consider also hearing from family members and others involved in the person’s care.
In our oral evidence sessions, we heard from Nicholas Mostyn and Alex Ruck Keene about some of the merits of doing so, with reference to the Bill that was before us at that stage. Since then, a significant number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled, so I will not press this amendment to a vote, given the other amendments now before the Committee.
Juliet Campbell
I rise to speak to amendments 407 and 410. Amendment 407 would leave out the word “may” and insert the word “must”, and would require the High Court to hear from and question all persons who made the application for a declaration. It is a probing amendment, which aims to question the guidelines for the judge to question and hear from some people and not all people. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I seek clarity on what the criteria would be for the judge to question some people and not others.
Kim Leadbeater
I hope I can provide some reassurance. This issue is covered by my new clause 21. The amendment, I think, asks why the High Court would not have heard from the patient. My new clause would ensure that the panel—as it potentially would be—will hear from the patient.
Juliet Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation.
I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be?
One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy.
By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.
Jake Richards
I will speak briefly, because many of these issues and themes will be debated in clause stand part and amendments 371 and the others from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendment 267 was not moved, but I would have opposed it in any event, on the basis that the discretion given there was way too wide and I did not understand the basis of the amendment in any way. Amendments 105 to 107, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), attempt to add an adversarial element to proceedings. Again, I will not comment too much because that issue comes back in the fourth grouping under this clause.
I turn briefly to amendment 410, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe just spoke. My understanding is that, although this relates to the High Court—which may be deemed redundant as we move on through this clause—the amendment aims to limit the people that the judge or panel can hear from. In my view that would be wrong and dangerous. The purpose of a judge or a panel is to explore the circumstances in this matter. That must mean that they have discretion to hear from others as well. In my view, this amendment, if passed, would significantly limit the safeguards and be quite dangerous.
As my hon. Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. As I and my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg have made clear throughout the debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on this Bill and do not take a position on assisted dying. My remarks will therefore focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments, to assist the members of this Committee in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.
Amendments 267 and 105 to107, which have now been withdrawn, deal with the Bill as currently drafted in relation to the High Court. Clause 12 as currently drafted would require the High Court to make a declaration that the requirements of the Bill have been met, following a person’s first declaration to receive assistance to end their own life, with statements from a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor. The amendments relate to how the High Court will declare itself satisfied that a person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and that they have not been coerced or pressured.
Briefly, amendments 407 and 410 seek to change who the High Court—as others have said, we might come on to debate some of these themes relation to the panel—would engage with when considering applications for assistance under the Bill. In determining whether the person has a clear, settled, and informed wish to end their life and that they have not been coerced or pressured, the High Court would be required to hear from and question the person seeking assistance, as opposed to having the option to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley pointed out, in the later provision in relation to the panel, that has now become a requirement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made clear, under her amendment 410 the High Court would lose the ability to hear from or indeed question any other party other than the person seeking assistance and the assessing doctors. Removing the ability—whether of the High Court or, as we may come on to debate, of the panel—to hear from and question any other party may limit that body or court’s ability to interrogate wider evidence or points of view.
Juliet Campbell
The probe that I have on that point is that the individual who is seeking the assisted death, and the doctors who have been working with that person, really have all the information. I am trying to ascertain, if we are not going to agree on this amendment, who else they would be seeking information from. Is there a risk if they are getting evidence from family members or other people, or having them give evidence or speak on behalf of that declaration?
Sarah Sackman
As I understand it, both in the context of the High Court—which has the ability to speak to whomever it likes—and of the panel, when we come to debate its role, that is a discretion. It is a requirement to hear from the person seeking an assisted death; it is a requirement to hear from the co-ordinating doctor. However, hearing from others is discretionary, which means that, if it is necessary in order to be satisfied that the eligibility criteria are met—which is what the scheme requires—in that context, under the panel’s or the High Court’s discretion, it may seek evidence from elsewhere. That is what the provision, as the Government reads it, is designed to do.
The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe puts forward clearly limits that discretion; whether that is desirable is a policy choice, but that is how it is intended to function. As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on these substantive policy questions, but I hope that is useful to members of the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
I think I have responded to the hon. Member for Broxtowe on amendment 407 by saying that the concern will potentially be covered by my new clause 21. On amendment 410, it is also my view that, whether it is the High Court or the panel or whoever we end up having over the course of this Committee, that third layer of scrutiny and safeguarding should be able to hear from other people, not just the patient and the doctor, so I would not support that amendment.
Daniel Francis
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 410, in clause 12, page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (6).—(Juliet Campbell.)
The amendment would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application for the declaration and the assessing doctors.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 432, in clause 12, page 8, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is linked to amendments which remove proxies from the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 433, in clause 19, page 13, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment is linked to amendments which remove proxies from the Bill.
Amendment 434, in clause 36, page 22, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is linked to amendments which remove proxies from the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I recognise that we are moving on and that we want to get on to the substantive clauses, and I certainly will not press these amendments to a vote. However, I want to put on record that I have extreme concerns about the role of the proxy in clause 15. It is unclear to me why a proxy is needed. I regret that we are not sticking with the High Court process, which would have enabled us to debate these amendments at this stage, but I will let it pass.
Sarah Sackman
Amendments 432 to 434 would remove provisions regarding proxies from the Bill. They deal with proxies in the context of the High Court process. As a consequence, the High Court would be unable to hear from the person’s proxy where the proxy has signed the first declaration, and the person would be unable to use a proxy to authorise a medical practitioner to provide assistance to end their own life. Removing the ability for persons seeking assistance to use a proxy would limit access to the assisted dying process for people who, for example, have a physical impairment, are unable to read or are for some other reason unable to sign the declaration. As I said earlier, the Government remain neutral, but I hope that provides some context and an explanation of how the amendments would operate.
Kim Leadbeater
I will be brief, because we will come on to this debate when we get to clause 15. To be clear, the circumstances where a proxy would be involved in this process are literally when somebody is so ill that they are unable to sign their own name, so it is a very limited set of circumstances.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 312, in clause 12, page 8, line 34, at end insert—
“(7A) Any person who wishes to challenge an application for a declaration under subsection (1) must enter a caveat in any district registry of the High Court within 14 days of the application being lodged or received, stating their belief that the requirements of this Act have not been met in relation to the first declaration, with specific reference to the matters listed in subsection (3).
(7B) Where a caveat is entered under subsection (7A), the High Court must hear from the person who has entered the caveat in addition to those persons listed in subsections (5) and (6).”.
This amendment would allow a person who believes that the requirements of the Act have not been met to make this known to the High Court and be heard before a declaration is made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 269, in clause 12, page 8, line 35, leave out subsections (8) to (11) and insert—
“(8) Any party to the proceedings may apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the applicable Rules of Court.”.
This amendment would allow any party to apply for permission to appeal a decision and remove the requirement for the Court of Appeal to conduct a re-hearing.
Amendment 313, in clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (11).
This amendment would enable appeals to be heard against a decision by the High Court to make a declaration.
Danny Kruger
Again, I will not press this amendment; I just want to put on record my support for the principle. This amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, is quite a clever device: if we were sticking with the High Court, it would have meant that someone with genuine concerns, for example a family member or acquaintance of a patient, could flag them without needing to be informed that the application was going ahead.
As we have discussed, there is a concern about these proceedings happening in the dark, as it were, without wider family being informed. If a family member suspected that there might be an assisted dying application in the works and that they were being excluded from consideration or discussion of that, there would have been the opportunity to put on record their concern, which would have required the judge to take a wider consideration than would be enabled without this amendment. I regret that that is not happening, but it may be possible through the course of the Bill to ensure that there will be further opportunities to introduce such measures. I welcome that new clause 21 would impose a requirement on the panel to consider family members, so there is an element of the right system there.
Sarah Sackman
Amendments 312 and 313 would make several changes to the process for High Court approval of applications under the Bill as drafted. Amendment 312 would allow a person who believes that the requirements of the Act have not been met to make that known to the High Court and to be heard before a declaration is made. The proposed mechanism is that the person would enter a caveat in any district registry of the High Court within 14 days of the application being lodged or received.
Of course we will come to later amendments, but under the Bill as drafted, the High Court has the power to hear from and question any person to determine whether the applicant has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and that they have not been pressured or coerced, so there is that mechanism to hear from others through that channel.
Amendment 313 would enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to make a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. As drafted, the Bill provides that any person may seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, including the decision to make a declaration, if they are adjudged to have standing.
Amendment 269 would enable any person, other than the person seeking assistance, to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court. The amendment would also enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to grant a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. The Court of Appeal would not be obliged to consider the matters set out in the Bill when forming its decision. It is important to say that whether with or without the amendment, any person may still seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, if they are adjudged to have standing.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 371, in clause 13, page 9, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person, and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 61, in clause 13, page 9, line 5, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 372, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out from third “the” to end of line 13 and insert
“certificate of eligibility was granted,”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 62, in clause 13, page 9, line 13, leave out from “the” to “or” in line 14 and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 373, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “declaration was made” and insert “certificate was granted”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 377, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person;
(da) a panel has refused to grant such a certificate;”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 63, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 378, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person,”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 64, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 381, in clause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (iii) and insert—
“(iii) a certificate of eligibility,”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 65, in clause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out from “the” to “under” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 388, in clause 34, page 20, line 40, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) a panel has refused to grant a certificate of eligibility;”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 66, in clause 34, page 20, line 40, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 390, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—
“‘certificate of eligibility’ has the same meaning as in section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance);”.
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 391, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—
“‘the Commissioner’ has the meaning given by section (Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner);”.
This amendment is consequential on NC14.
New clause 14—Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner—
“(1) There is to be a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.
(2) The Commissioner is to be appointed by the Prime Minister.
(3) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of—
(a) the Supreme Court,
(b) the Court of Appeal, or
(c) the High Court.
(4) The Commissioner’s principal functions are—
(a) receiving documents made under this Act;
(b) making appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit on Assisted Dying Review Panels (see Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels));
(c) making arrangements in relation to such panels and referring cases to them (see section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel));
(d) determining applications for reconsideration of panel decisions under section (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility);
(e) monitoring the operation of this Act and reporting annually on it (see section 34).
(5) In this Act “the Commissioner” means the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.
(6) Schedule (The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner) makes provision about the Commissioner.”.
This new clause provides for there to be a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.
New clause 15—Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel—
“(1) This section applies where the Commissioner receives—
(a) a first declaration made by a person,
(b) a report about the first assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g), and
(c) a report about the second assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).
(2) The Commissioner must, as soon as reasonably practicable, refer the person’s case to an Assisted Dying Review Panel for determination of the person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance under section 18.
(3) But where the Commissioner receives a notification that the first declaration has been cancelled—
(a) the Commissioner must not refer the person’s case to such a panel, and
(b) if the person’s case has already been so referred, the Commissioner must notify the panel of the cancellation.
(4) Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels) makes provision about Assisted Dying Review Panels.”
This new clause provides for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner to refer a person’s case to a multidisciplinary panel, to be called an Assisted Dying Review Panel.
New clause 17—Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person’s case is referred under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) to an Assisted Dying Review Panel (“the first panel”), and
(b) the first panel refuses to grant a certificate of eligibility in respect of the person.
(2) The person may apply to the Commissioner for their case to be reconsidered on the ground that the first panel’s decision—
(a) contains an error of law,
(b) is irrational, or
(c) is procedurally unfair.
(3) The Commissioner must consider an application without a hearing.
(4) On the application—
(a) if the Commissioner is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) applies, they must as soon as reasonably practicable refer the person’s case to a different Assisted Dying Review Panel for a fresh determination under section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance);
(b) in any other case, the Commissioner must dismiss the application.
(5) The Commissioner must give reasons, in writing, for their decision.
(6) The Commissioner must notify the following of the outcome of the application, and give them a document containing their reasons for their decision—
(a) the person who made the application;
(b) the coordinating doctor;
(c) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause provides for certain decisions of Assisted Dying Review Panels to be referred to a different panel for reconsideration.
Amendment (a) to new clause 17, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) The person applying for assisted dying, their next of kin, any of their relatives (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1996), the registered medical practitioners who are treating them and anyone who took part in proceedings before the panel or gave evidence to the panel may apply to the Commissioner for the Panel’s decision to be reconsidered.
(2) The Commissioner will allow the application for reconsideration if the Panel’s decision was—
(a) wrong, or
(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.
(3) The Commissioner may consider the application without a hearing if they consider it in the interests of justice to dispense with a hearing.”
New clause 21—Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance—
“(1) This section applies where a person’s case is referred under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) or (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility) to an Assisted Dying Review Panel (“the panel”).
(2) The panel’s function is to determine whether it is satisfied of all of the following matters—
(a) that the requirements of sections 5 to 9 have been met in relation to—
(i) the first declaration,
(ii) the first assessment and the report under section 7 on that assessment, and
(iii) the second assessment and the report under section 8 on that assessment;
(b) that the person is terminally ill;
(c) that the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life;
(d) that the person was aged 18 or over at the time the first declaration was made;
(e) that before making the first declaration, but when the person was aged 18 or over, a registered medical practitioner conducted a preliminary discussion with the person;
(f) that the person is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration;
(g) that the person is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales;
(h) that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life;
(i) that the person made the first declaration voluntarily and was not coerced or pressured by any other person into making that declaration.
(3) Subject to the following and to Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels), the panel may adopt such procedure as it considers appropriate for the case.
(4) The panel—
(a) must hear from, and may question, the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (and may hear from and question both);
(b) must (subject to subsection (5)) hear from, and may question, the person to whom the referral relates;
(c) in a case to which section 15 applies, may hear from and may question the person’s proxy;
(d) may hear from and may question any other person;
(e) may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.
In paragraphs (a) to (c) the reference to hearing from or questioning a person is to hearing from them, or questioning them, in person or by live video or audio link.
(5) The duty under subsection (4)(b) to hear from the person to whom the referral relates does not apply if the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from that person.
(6) The panel—
(a) must, if it is satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2), grant a certificate to that effect (a “certificate of eligibility”);
(b) must refuse to do so in any other case.
(7) The panel must notify the following of its decision—
(a) the person to whom the referral relates;
(b) the coordinating doctor;
(c) the Commissioner;
(d) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Where it grants a certificate of eligibility, it must give a copy of the certificate to each of these persons.
(8) If the panel is notified that the first declaration has been cancelled, it must cease to act in relation to the referral (and, in particular, it may not grant a certificate of eligibility).”
This new clause provides for a person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance under clause 18 to be determined by a multidisciplinary panel (instead of the High Court).
Amendment (d) to new clause 21, in subsection (4), leave out paragraphs (a) to (e) and insert—
“(a) must hear from, and must question, the coordinating doctor and the independent doctor;
(b) must (subject to subsection (5)) hear from, and must question, the person to whom the referral relates;
(c) in a case to which section 15 applies, must hear from and must question the person’s proxy;
(d) must consider hearing from and questioning—
(i) persons properly interested in the welfare of the person who made the application for the declaration and other persons they are close to; and
(ii) any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness; and
(e) may hear from and may question any other person, including any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 21, in subsection (4), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(aa) if it considers that the matters mentioned in subsection 2(c), (h) or (i) are established on a balance of probabilities but still considers that there is a real risk that they are not satisfied, then the panel must stay its proceedings until such further inquiries it orders are made,”.
Amendment (e) to new clause 21, after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material for the purposes of subsection (4).”
Amendment (a) to new clause 21, in subsection (6)(a), after “satisfied” insert “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Amendment (b) to new clause 21, in subsection (6)(a), after “subsection (2)” insert
“unless it believes that there are particular circumstances which make it inappropriate for the person to be assisted to end their own life,”.
New clause 2—Tribunal authorisation—
“(1) Where—
(a) a person has made a first declaration under section 5 which has not been cancelled,
(b) the coordinating doctor has made the statement mentioned in section 7(3), and
(c) the independent doctor has made the statement mentioned in section 8(5), that person may apply to the First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met in relation to the first declaration.
(2) On an application under this section, the Tribunal—
(a) must make the declaration if it is satisfied of all the matters listed in subsection (3), and
(b) in any other case, must refuse to make the declaration.
(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2)(a) are that—
(a) the requirements of sections 5 to 9 of this Act have been met in relation to the person who made the application,
(b) the person is terminally ill,
(c) the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life,
(d) the person has relevant and available palliative care options available to them,
(e) the person is not liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983,
(f) the person was aged 18 or over at the time the first declaration was made,
(g) the person is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration,
(h) the person is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales,
(i) the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and
(j) the person made the first declaration and the application under this section voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making that declaration or application.
(4) The Tribunal—
(a) may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application for the declaration;
(b) must hear from and may question, in person, the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (or both);
(c) for the purposes of paragraph (b), may require the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (or both) to appear before the tribunal.
(5) For the purposes of determining whether it is satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(g) and (h), the Tribunal may also—
(a) hear from and question any other person;
(b) ask a person to report to the Tribunal on such matters relating to the person who has applied for the declaration as it considers appropriate.
(6) In considering an application under this section, the panel must consist of—
(a) a sitting judge,
(b) a medical practitioner, and
(c) a lay person.
(7) In subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to the person who made the application includes, in a case where the person’s first declaration was signed by a proxy under section 15, that proxy, and
(b) “in person” includes by means of a live video link or a live audio link.”
This new clause would replace the role of the High Court with the tribunal system.
New clause 3—Tribunals in Wales—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, in exercising functions under or arising from this Act in relation to Wales, are to be treated as devolved tribunals within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(2) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision relating to the procedure to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in exercising functions under this Act in relation to Wales.
(3) Statutory instruments containing regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of Senedd Cymru.”
Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 28, line 32, leave out from “The” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 68, in schedule 5, page 30, line 6, leave out from “the” to “made” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 69, in schedule 5, page 30, line 10, leave out from “the” to end of line and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
Amendment 70, in schedule 6, page 32, line 3, leave out from “of” to “declaration” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.
New schedule 1—The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner—
“Status
1 (1) The Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.
(2) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as—
(a) the servant or agent of the Crown, or
(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(3) The Commissioner’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
General powers
2 The Commissioner may do anything the Commissioner considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, the Commissioner’s functions.
Deputy Commissioner
3 (1) The Prime Minister must appoint a person to be the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (the “Deputy Commissioner”).
(2) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of—
(a) the Supreme Court,
(b) the Court of Appeal, or
(c) the High Court.
(3) The Commissioner may delegate any of the Commissioner’s functions to the Deputy Commissioner, to the extent and on the terms that the Commissioner determines.
(4) The delegation of a function under sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent the Commissioner from exercising that function.
(5) The functions of the Commissioner are to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner if—
(a) there is a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner, or
(b) the Commissioner is for any reason unable or unwilling to act.
Appointment and tenure of office
4 (1) A person holds and vacates office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment as determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(2) An appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is to be for a term not exceeding five years.
(3) A person may not be appointed as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if a relevant appointment of them has been made on two occasions. “Relevant appointment” here means appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
(4) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may resign by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—
(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office, or
(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.
Remuneration
5 The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, the person holding office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner—
(a) remuneration;
(b) allowances;
(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.
Staff: appointed by Commissioner
6 (1) The Commissioner may appoint staff.
(2) Staff are to be appointed on terms and conditions determined by the Commissioner.
(3) The terms and conditions on which a member of staff is appointed may provide for the Commissioner to pay to or in respect of the member of staff—
(a) remuneration;
(b) allowances;
(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.
(4) In making appointments under this paragraph, the Commissioner must have regard to the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
(5) The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 does not require insurance to be effected by the Commissioner.
Staff: secondment to Commissioner
7 (1) The Commissioner may make arrangements for persons to be seconded to the Commissioner to serve as members of the Commissioner's staff.
(2) The arrangements may include provision for payments by the Commissioner to the person with whom the arrangements are made or directly to seconded staff (or both).
(3) A period of secondment to the Commissioner does not affect the continuity of a person's employment with the employer from whose service he or she is seconded.
Staff: general
8 (1) Before appointing staff under paragraph 6 or making arrangements under paragraph 7(1), the Commissioner must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State as to the Commissioner's policies on—
(a) the number of staff to be appointed or seconded;
(b) payments to be made to or in respect of staff;
(c) the terms and conditions on which staff are to be appointed or seconded.
(2) A function of the Commissioner may be carried out by any of the Commissioner's staff to the extent authorised by the Commissioner (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—
(a) the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels) of making appointments to the list of persons eligible to be panel members;
(b) the Commissioner’s function of determining applications for reconsideration under section (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility).
Financial and other assistance from the Secretary of State
9 (1) The Secretary of State may—
(a) make payments to the Commissioner of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) give such financial assistance to the Commissioner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The Secretary of State may—
(a) provide staff in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner under paragraph 7;
(b) provide premises, facilities or other assistance to the Commissioner.
Accounts
10 (1) The Commissioner must—
(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and
(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in the form specified by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Commissioner must send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General—
(a) before the end of August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, or
(b) on or before such earlier date after the end of that year as the Treasury may direct.
(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts, and
(b) send a copy of the certified statement and the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each document received under sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(5) In this paragraph, “financial year” means—
(a) the period beginning with the date on which the Commissioner is established and ending with the second 31 March following that date, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months.
Application of seal and proof of documents
11 (1) The application of the Commissioner's seal is to be authenticated by the signature of—
(a) the Commissioner, or
(b) a person who has been authorised by the Commissioner for that purpose (whether generally or specially).
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the Commissioner’s seal or signed on the Commissioner’s behalf —
(a) is to be received in evidence, and
(b) is to be treated as duly executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is shown.
Public Records Act 1958
12 In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (bodies whose records are public records), at the appropriate place insert “The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner”.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
13 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying person from membership of House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—
“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner or the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”
Freedom of Information Act 2000
14 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities for the purposes of the Act) , at the appropriate place insert—
“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”
Equality Act 2010
15 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the end of the group of entries for bodies whose functions relate to health, social care and social security insert—
“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.””
This new Schedule contains provision about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
New schedule 2—Assisted Dying Review Panels—
“Introduction
1 In this Schedule—
(a) “referral” means a referral under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) or (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility) (and similar references are to be construed accordingly);
(b) “panel” means an Assisted Dying Review Panel.
List of persons eligible to be panel members
2 (1) The Commissioner must make appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit as members of panels.
(2) A person may be appointed to the list only if—
(a) the person (a “legal member”)—
(i) holds or has held high judicial office,
(ii) is one of His Majesty’s Counsel, or
(iii) has (at any time) been requested to act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court by virtue of section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981,
(b) the person (a “psychiatrist member”) is—
(i) a registered medical practitioner,
(ii) a practising psychiatrist, and
(iii) registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council, or
(c) the person is registered as a social worker in a register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales (a “social worker member”).
(3) In this paragraph “high judicial office” means office as—
(a) a judge of the Supreme Court,
(b) a judge of the Court of Appeal, or
(c) a judge or deputy judge of the High Court.
Tenure of persons appointed to list
3 (1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, persons on the list hold and vacate their appointments in accordance with the terms on which they are appointed.
(2) An appointment to the list is to be for a period not exceeding five years.
(3) A person who has held appointment to the list is eligible for re-appointment for one further period not exceeding five years.
Membership of panels
4 (1) The Commissioner must make arrangements for determining the membership of a panel.
(2) The arrangements must ensure that a panel consists of—
(a) a legal member,
(b) a psychiatrist member, and
(c) a social worker member.
Decisions of panels
5 (1) The legal member of a panel is to act as its chair.
(2) Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member votes against a decision to grant such a certificate.
Panel sittings
6 (1) Panels are to determine referrals in public (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (2)).
(2) The chair of a panel may, at the request of the person to whom a referral relates, decide that the panel is to sit in private.
Staff and facilities
7 The Commissioner may make staff and other facilities available to panels.
Practice and procedure
8 (1) The Commissioner may give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.
(2) Panels must have regard to any such guidance in the exercise of their functions.
Reasons
9 Panels must give reasons, in writing, for their decisions.
Money
10 The Commissioner may pay to or in respect of members of panels—
(a) remuneration;
(b) allowances;
(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
11 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying persons from membership of House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—
“Person on the list of those eligible for membership of an Assisted Dying Review Panel.””
This new Schedule contains provision about Assisted Dying Review Panels.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 4, after
“(c) a social worker member.”
insert—
“(3) The Commissioner must ensure that each member of a panel has had training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.”
Amendment (a) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 4, after
“(c) a social worker member.”
insert—
“(3) Each member of a panel must have fluent proficiency in the Welsh language if services or functions in the Act are to be provided to an individual in Welsh.”
Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 8, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) The Commissioner must give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.
(2) Such guidance must prescribe a procedure which in relation to each application appoints a person nominated by the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the panel.
(3) Panels must have regard to such guidance in the exercise of their functions.”
This amendment would require Assisted Dying Panels to follow an adversarial process to test the evidence by appointing an advocate to the panel.
Kim Leadbeater
I hope you are sitting comfortably, Mrs Harris; it is a pleasure to see you this evening. I rise to speak to new schedules 1 and 2, new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21, and their consequential amendments. These provisions relate to the introduction of the assisted dying commission, which would oversee the assisted dying process in England and Wales, and the multi-disciplinary panels of experts, which will operate as part of the commission, should the Bill be passed.
It has always been my view, and I have always been clear, that there should be a third layer of scrutiny and safeguarding in the assisted dying process, particularly given the significance of the change in the law. However, I appreciate that, if we compare the Bill with the many other models of assisted dying around the world, this is very unusual. Most jurisdictions have a process that involves two doctors, as the Bill does, but there is no additional stage.
There are different views as to whether a third layer is necessary; many other jurisdictions have processes that provide a very compassionate, patient-centred and well-safeguarded approach to assisted dying without it. Indeed, some of the most difficult emails I receive are from terminally ill people who are very concerned about the complexity of the process laid out in the Bill. They feel that it is overcomplicated and too bureaucratic to navigate for people who are in their dying days and weeks. I am very sensitive to that. I am also aware that the thorough process set out in the Bill will take time, and there will be people who embark upon it who will die before they can complete it, as happens in other jurisdictions. That is, of course, extremely sad.
I also know that, certainly in this country, people feel strongly that oversight and scrutiny of what we might call the initial medical stages of the assisted dying process are important. The challenge is achieving an appropriate balance between compassion and patient autonomy, and robust safeguarding—plus, of course, medical autonomy.
If there is to be a third layer, what should it look like? As the Bill stands, the third layer of scrutiny is a High Court judge, who would make the final decision regarding a patient’s choice to have an assisted death. I was, and remain, very confident in the ability of High Court judges to have that role, but it is fair to say that there is a range of views on the suitability of the judiciary to fulfil this function—not least from ex-judges themselves. It is important that we as a Committee acknowledge that.
Barrister and former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption said that
“clause 12 is unnecessary and in some respects undesirable.”
He went on:
“The concern that I have about clause 12 in its current form is that it is not entirely clear what the judge is supposed to do…is he there in order to ensure that the two doctors have done their job and that the ducks are all in a row, or is he there to form his own view on all of those matters, completely independently of those who have already given their certificates?...It seems to me that this is a protection that no other country, so far as I am aware, among those that have authorised one or other form of assisted dying has included.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 172-173, Q222.]
Lord Sumption has been critical of the complexity of the process set out in the Bill as drafted, describing it as
“over-engineered, bureaucratic, and coldly inhumane”.
He told us in evidence that he disagreed with the inclusion of the need for High Court approval of a person’s application for an assisted death.
Former High Court judge Sir James Munby has written various articles in this regard. In his piece “Assisted dying: what role for the judge?” he asks:
“Should the judges be involved at all in this process? Is what is proposed a proper judicial function?”
He continues:
“Is this, indeed, truly a judicial function at all? Many would say that it is not. Where else in our judicial system does one find a judge, sitting judicially as a judge, whose function is not to decide some disputed issue or…to resolve some controversy but only to certify, as it were, that some decision taken by a private individual complies with the law? That, it might be said, is not what judges do and not what judges are for.”
He also expresses his concerns around conscientious objection and the challenges of ensuring
“an open and transparent process that may deter those for whom the scheme is designed, and a secret process destructive of the integrity of the scheme and corrosive of the judicial function.”
I absolutely agree that this is a very tricky balance.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady cites James Munby, who correctly identified the problems with the High Court process as it was designed and exists in the Bill. Is she aware that he also strongly objects to the amendments? He thinks that the newly proposed scheme fails on all the same tests, and he regards it as just as unsafe as the previous one.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is fair to say that there is a range of views on this subject from the judiciary. Ex-judges have commented, and I will come to those comments shortly.
In his evidence, the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said that the best safeguards were the simple ones and warned that patients could find themselves in “a bureaucratic thicket” at the end of life if there is too much to navigate. I am very sensitive to that. Responding to his comments, Lord Sumption said:
“I do agree with that…one suggestion that I think would make a significant difference…is the removal of the clause 12 stage.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 182, Q236.]
That shows the difference of opinion among former judges.
Danny Kruger
I have made this point before, but I will do so again: it is very welcome to have these extra professionals involved in the process. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that it would be so much more appropriate to have them involved early on, at the assessment stage? We all want it not to be just a rubber stamp, but they are currently to be involved at the approval stage, at the end of the process, essentially fulfilling a judicial function of deciding yes or no. Why are these professionals not involved earlier?
Kim Leadbeater
I disagree: they are involved earlier. I have talked about the amendments we have already made around health and social care professionals. We have tabled those amendments, changed the Bill and added that provision on the basis of the evidence we heard. Remember that either doctor can speak to any other health or social care professional they wish. I would say that, actually, a multidisciplinary approach is taken throughout the Bill and, by ending the process with the panel, that is reinforced.
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said in his radio interview on 12 February, “I do welcome”—as he has confirmed today—“the additional role of more experts in the process”. Hopefully, irrespective of our different views, that is something that the idea of the panel can coalesce around. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to assisted dying, I hope that, in the interests of strengthening the Bill, he will be able to support the amendments today, because that is the job of this Committee—to strengthen the Bill, not to try to stop it, however strongly people may feel about the issue.
A significant part of the strengthening is through additional patient-centred safeguards. I firmly believe that the introduction of the assisted dying commission and the addition of the multidisciplinary expertise and oversight provided by the panels are a crucial part of that. The panel will look at the detail of every individual case and scrutinise the doctors’ reports. It must hear from and may question the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor; it may hear from and question both; and it must hear from and may question the patient themselves. I mentioned that in relation to the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe earlier. It is the default.
This was a difficult decision. I appreciate that to make the patient undergo another level of personal scrutiny could be viewed as cruel. Indeed, a number of people have said to me that they feel it will be too burdensome on the patient during what is already a deeply emotional, highly personal and stressful time, when they are likely to be in pain and having treatment. I acknowledge that. Again, this is about finding the very difficult balance between avoiding an unduly stressful bureaucratic process and ensuring that the patient is making, as the Bill says, a “clear, settled and informed” decision. There is a very strong argument that in order to do so, the panel should hear from the person themselves. That is the decision I have taken, addressing the concerns of colleagues who have tabled amendments to the same effect. Indeed, Lord Munby said of the Bill as it stands that
“the absence of any requirement that the judge ‘must’ hear from and question the patient is a quite extraordinary lacuna.”
I appreciate, though, that there will be exceptional circumstances, which we know may be the case if the patient is very ill and in their last few weeks of life.
The panel may also ask any person who appears to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person as it considers appropriate. It can basically ask to hear from anybody it wishes. That would obviously vary from case to case. Every case will be different, as we have discussed, and flexibility is really important. Only if all three members of the panel are satisfied that all the criteria have been met will it issue a certificate of eligibility. It must refuse to do so if it is not satisfied. The decision of the panel has to be unanimous. If there is any doubt from any of the panel members that the criteria have been met, the patient cannot proceed.
The patient then enters a 14-day period of reflection, before making their second declaration. It is worth reiterating that, as has been said previously, a significant number of patients get to that stage and never actually continue with an assisted death, but the comfort it provides enables them to live out their final weeks and days with a sense of reassurance. As families have described, a weight is lifted. Indeed, Professor Michael Dooley, who is the director of pharmacy at Alfred Health and the head of Victorian voluntary assisted dying pharmacy services, and who some of us met yesterday, told us that in that state in Australia some 90% of assisted dying patients also still access palliative care. That shows the holistic approach that can be taken.
There is of course another very important role for the commission, which is in relation to the monitoring and reporting of cases—something I feel very strongly about. The details are set out in my amendment 455 to clause 34. The commission must produce an annual report, which must include details about the application of the Act. That report must include details in relation to persons who have protected characteristics, and details of any other description of people specified. That would include data on demographics; statistics on the populations and characteristics of the patients who have chosen an assisted death; their age and gender; geographical analysis; data regarding the illnesses and diseases; how many cases were rejected; and how many patients did not complete the process and so on. When completing the annual report, the commissioner must consult the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, and anyone who represents the interests of people with protected characteristics.
The Law Society, which is neutral on assisted dying, says that if the law were to change, the system must have
“robust, accessible and independent safeguards”
as well as
“strong independent monitoring and review mechanisms”.
I agree. The introduction of a multidisciplinary panel of experts to consider all applications for an assisted death, overseen by a commissioner in the form of a High Court judge, sitting or retired, really does achieve that, and embeds a truly robust, multidisciplinary approach, which I am confident will put patients at the centre of the assisted dying process and provide additional scrutiny, safeguards and protections.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to new clause 21, new clause 14, new clause 16, new schedule 2 and amendment (b) to new schedule 2. I will start with new clause 21—and have a break in between.
I oppose new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I also wish to oppose new clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17, which between them set out the panel procedure to replace the use of a High Court judge, but I will focus my remarks on new clause 21. That is because, first, it is the most recently tabled of my hon. Friend’s new clauses on the panel. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it seems to be an attempt to solve some of the problems of the earlier new clauses.
I welcome what I think my hon. Friend’s intentions are with the new clauses. The Bill as drafted did not provide anything like adequate safeguards. The new clause states that the panel must hear from, and may then question, the doctors who made the certification, the applicant for assisted death, and any other person who may have relevant information. These moves are very welcome steps towards a tighter set of safeguards, but they are inadequate because of what they leave out.
Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court of England and Wales, has written several times about the problems with the Bill. It is a matter of great regret to me that we did not hear from Sir James; I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley set out that he was invited to give evidence to the Committee. Sir James has expressed profound concern about the series of new clauses— new clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17—that my hon. Friend has tabled. He wrote that the new clauses did address some of the problems of the original Bill, but he went on:
“These changes are to be welcomed, so far as they go. It is important to recognise, however, that they do not, in my opinion, go anything like far enough.”
As I have said, some elements of new clause 21 do indeed address some of the problems that Sir James identified but, again, the new clause unfortunately still leaves many of the biggest problems untouched.
The Bill does not set out that evidence must be heard under oath. That is an extraordinary omission. Sir James Munby asks, in his most recent essay:
“is the panel to hear evidence on oath? Indeed, will the panel have power to administer an oath?”
We rightly expect our courts to hear evidence under oath if they deal with cases concerning property or contract. The matters the panels will be dealing with are far more important than that. It is baffling to me why we should hear evidence on these matters without making witnesses swear oaths to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone speaking to one of these panels should do so with the same commitment to telling the truth as they would in a court of law.
Danny Kruger
Danny Kruger; we are easily confused. [Laughter.]
The hon. Lady talks about the question of oaths, and it is extraordinary. Does she agree that it speaks to the confusion about whether the panels are a judicial construct at all? They have a judicial function—they exercise a judicial responsibility—but they are composed of non-lawyers. Maybe that explains why there is no oath, but I agree with the hon. Lady that there should be one. Does it not speak to the confusion in the new clause?
Naz Shah
As I make progress, I will speak to that point, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will return to my speech and expand on the point when I arrive at that juncture.
Sir James goes on to say that there are even graver problems with the panel procedure. I appreciate that his paper was published before new clause 21 was tabled, but it does not address all the concerns he raised. He referred particularly to new clause 16, but it is relevant to note that the problem he identified is left untouched by new clause 21. Sir James says of new clause 16:
“It says very little about the procedures to be adopted for testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”.
He goes on to say that
“it says nothing about who should exercise that function; nor about the nature of any independent evidential investigation and nothing about who is to undertake this and who is to pay for it.”
Finally on this point, he says that new clause 16
“says nothing about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors, and any other parties or expert or lay witnesses.”
The first point raised by Sir James is an extraordinary one. The panels will bring together three people: a lawyer, a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker. They will sit on what is a quasi-judicial body. The latter two will not necessarily have any experience of questioning witnesses and assessing evidence as part of a quasi-judicial process. The first person—the lawyer—will have such experience. What is going to happen? Are we just hoping that they will successfully make it up as they go along? Is there not a danger that in some cases the non-legal members of the panel end up deferring to the wishes of the lawyer, who has more experience in these matters?
Kim Leadbeater
I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making, and it is a shame that we did not hear from James Munby in evidence. I understand why he says that: he is looking at it through a judicial lens, because he is a judge. But this is not a judicial entity. It is a panel—it is not a court—and the range of expertise on it is actually a strength, not a weakness.
Naz Shah
As I make progress I will address some my hon. Friend’s points—I have a fairly long speech—but I will say now that when the Bill passed on Second Reading, one of the safeguards was that it included judicial oversight. That is very different to what we are talking about now.
Danny Kruger
This is a very important point, and I am grateful for the hon. Member for Spen Valley’s admission that this is not a judicial process. We have constantly been told that the Bill has been gold-plated with the judicial stage of the application process, but we have now heard that there is not a judicial stage. We have also heard that this is “judge-plus” and somehow an improvement—it is a judge and others—but we should be clear that there is not necessarily a judge in the process, and it is very unlikely that there would be. We have just heard conclusively that the judicial stage of the process in the Bill has been dropped.
Naz Shah
I agree: there is not a judicial process, so to speak. There most definitely is not. As I make progress, I will outline my concerns about that very clearly.
Let us take the second point raised by Sir James. He asked who will go about
“testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”?
New clause 21 finally gives the panel the power to call people to give evidence who are neither the applicant nor the doctor. New clause 21(4) says that the panel
“may hear from and may question any other person”
and
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
I welcome that as a start, because it acknowledges that there will be cases in which people other than the applicant and the doctors have vital information. But that really should not be where we finish—not if we want a genuinely robust assisted dying Bill with strong safeguards for vulnerable people.
The ability of the panel to hear evidence from other parties would indeed be one step towards detecting whether people are, for example, being coerced towards an assisted death. That would be one step towards being able to detect whether people were choosing assisted death because of a lack of palliative care or social care. But how will the panels know which witnesses are most likely to have or be aware of the significant evidence they seek?
The panel members will have the statements by the applicant and the doctors, and they will have the answers to any questions they have of the applicant and the doctors. I ask Members to think through how certain it is that those sources alone will be enough to find all the people who might have significant knowledge of a person’s circumstances. I would argue that it will not be certain. Yes, in some cases there will be no hidden circumstances that a panel would hear of from a witness only if they were called, but in other cases there will be, and those circumstances are much more likely to occur in the cases of people who are coerced or who feel like a burden to their families. They will be more likely to occur for those who have poor mental health, who are isolated, or who lack the social care they need. The panels are not likely to find witnesses with relevant information if what they have to go on is the statement of witness evidence of a person who has, for example, been successfully and skilfully coerced.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
New clause 21(4)(e) says that the panel
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the expertise of the three panel members, as set out in the new clause, will mean they will very much have the ability to identify, on the basis of that subsection, the kind of individuals and the knowledge required?
Naz Shah
As I have stated before—I will make reference to that very point later—I would argue the safeguards are just not robust enough.
There should be a mechanism for trained and experienced people to find witnesses who might have relevant information. This could relate to another criticism that Members have made of the panel system: there is no provision for the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Sir James Munby argues that we should strongly consider this, saying that
“there must be a rigorous procedure in every case for testing and if need be challenging the evidence, including an independent evidential investigation, perhaps by the Official Solicitor, of the kind discussed in Conway. There are two reasons why this is essential in every case…Without this, it will not be proper for a judge to be involved in the process as a member of the panel.”
He goes on to make it plain that by “judge” he means the legal member of the panel.
Kim Leadbeater
I appreciate that this is slightly difficult to get our heads around, but we have legal expertise—we potentially have a judge, a sitting judge, a retired judge or an eminent KC—but they are not there in their capacity as a judge. I understand that that is tricky for people to understand, but they are there because of their skillset. That is the important distinction.
Naz Shah
That is the very distinction I am trying to highlight further, because the panel takes away the judicial oversight. Yes, they have expertise—there is no question about people’s expertise—but Sir James Munby says clearly that these people will not be sitting in their capacity as judges, as my hon. Friend just outlined, but just as experts. That does not provide judicial oversight. That is not what the panel does.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the whole point: Sir James Munby said he did not think that was the job for the judge.
Naz Shah
I will go into this in even greater detail in later speeches, but I will say now that although the process was not fit for purpose, Sir James Munby also says that this one is not fit for purpose. Neither process gives us the legal aspect—if anything, the Bill has been watered down. As I make progress, I will outline how I think Sir James Munby’s evidence is clear that the safeguard has been watered down. I appreciate the mood in the room while I insist on talking about this, but it is very, very important, because when we voted in the House to send the Bill to Committee, one of the biggest reasons why we did so was judicial oversight. Many Members have said that they let the Bill get to this stage because of that.
Lewis Atkinson
I think my hon. Friend just said that the amendments would allow the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Why would that strengthen the process?
Naz Shah
I think that by making some progress I will answer that question.
Turning to Sir James Munby’s question about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors and any other parties, experts or lay witnesses, each time a panel meets we will be asking three senior professionals to give up many hours of their time to scrutinise applications, listen to and perhaps question witnesses, and then decide whether to call further witnesses. I could ask many questions about funding, but I will ask just one at the moment. Both Ministers will be well aware that courts and tribunals in England and Wales face lengthy delays—in some cases, delays of years. Will the Government commit to adequately funding the panel so that applicants do not face lengthy delays?
Another question about the resourcing of the panels is just as important: can we make good on the commitment in the Bill to provide a consultant psychiatrist for every panel? I think the answer may well be no. We spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists during our evidence sessions, but at that stage my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley had not tabled the amendments that would create a panel including a consultant psychiatrist, so we did not ask the professional body whether it would be able to do so.
I have had private conversations with my team of senior psychiatrists. We asked whether England and Wales had enough consultant psychiatrists to serve on each panel. They said it was extremely unlikely. I would like to understand whether my hon. Friend consulted the Royal College of Psychiatrists before she tabled those amendments. If she did not, that seems an extraordinary omission.
Ministers keep saying that the Government will release an impact assessment only when the Committee has finished amending the Bill. I say again: that seems to me a most unsatisfactory approach to a Bill that would lead to such a huge change. Surely the Minister could ask civil servants to prepare a preliminary estimate of how many applicants there might be in England and Wales. It should probably be phrased as a likely minimum and likely maximum number. That would be extremely helpful. Surely the Government could do the preliminary work on whether the psychiatric profession in England and Wales is capable of meeting that demand. I say this in the light of my understanding that the present state of the country’s judiciary contributed to the removal of the judge in the first instance.
Kim Leadbeater
Just to be clear, that was not the reason for the change. We need to be very clear about that. The reason for the change was that it strengthens the Bill.
Naz Shah
That was not my understanding; I will come back to that point, because I am sure I have references to where that has been talked about. There is also the question of whether panels should be heard in public. Under new clause 16, the legal member of a panel would decide whether it should sit in public.
Finally, I return to Sir James Munby’s paper on this question. As I have gone through in some detail, he raised significant concerns about panel procedures set out in new clauses 14 to 17. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most of those concerns have not been addressed by new clause 21. Sir James was a very senior judge, who headed the family division of the High Court, and is someone we should listen to with the utmost attention on these matters. He said:
“I appreciate that some may point to the multidisciplinary membership of the panel and to an assumption that the function and process of the panel may (it is said) be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Plainly, it might be thought, it is an advantage that the panel has a multidisciplinary membership, and it is often said that three heads are better than one. Yet it would be a mistake to think that either of these features of what is now proposed are sufficient to overcome the very real problems I have identified. They are not. What remains crucial is the substance, not mere appearances. If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’—if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents—then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed.”
Lewis Atkinson
Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the functioning of mental health tribunals, which operate as panels in a very similar way to this proposal: chaired by a legal member with a specialist member and a medical member? They perform a similar quasi-judicial function, receive evidence and make important decisions on people’s healthcare choices. Does she not agree that that model provides a good example of how this system could work?
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend’s intervention takes us back to the concerns I already have. I understand that mental health tribunals relate to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which would inform people on that panel in making their judgments. I have spoken extensively against the use of the Mental Capacity Act in this particular field.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for engaging on this issue, but this is not about the Mental Capacity Act; it is about the Mental Health Act 1983 and whether someone would be sectioned and denied liberty—a significant decision against the person’s own wishes. That determination is made by mental health tribunals sitting in that judicial function, day in, day out, with exactly the sort of panel membership outlined here.
Naz Shah
I either misheard my hon. Friend or did not understand his earlier point, so let me speak to the point he makes now. My understanding is that sectioning someone under the Mental Health Act is a very extreme measure. Someone is sectioned in circumstances in which lots and lots of evidence has been taken from people who know the person, and there is a history. That was certainly the case when I chaired a mental health charity. Whether it is carers or other people who contribute to that, there is a long-standing relationship; from my understanding, it is very rare for something to happen otherwise. That is my understanding and experience of it, but I am happy to have a chat with my hon. Friend to talk more about it and understand it more.
Danny Kruger
Does the hon. Lady agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is very helpful because it highlights the difference between a genuine judicial tribunal, as he suggests, and what is being proposed here? This is not a tribunal. It would not sit in a judicial capacity. Its members would not take oaths in the way that members of a tribunal do. They are not appointed through the independent appointments process that tribunals have. This is a multidisciplinary team masquerading as some sort of final judicial stage, without the proper accountability of a judicial stage. On that basis, we cannot regard it as any sort of improvement to the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for reminding me of that; I talked about that earlier. I agree with him that this is about the legalities. Ultimately, it comes back to judicial oversight, which is what was promised originally. That is why judges were part of the original proposals for the Bill. The words we must listen to are Sir James Munby’s. If we want an assisted dying Bill with real safeguards for the vulnerable, then we should reject new clauses 14 to 17 and new clause 21. They are not thorough enough to do the job.
The Chair
I should let the hon. Member know that I am happy for her to make five speeches, as she has indicated, but each one needs to be specific to the clause and not replicating the previous speech.
Sarah Olney
I will speak briefly about an important point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made. I want to get it on the record that I disagreed with something that she said. We heard a lot in the evidence sessions about the desirability of a multidisciplinary approach or a multi-professional team, and I listened particularly carefully to Dr Sarah Cox, who gave oral evidence to the Committee on 28 January on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. She made important and interesting points regarding the desirability of the involvement of multidisciplinary teams in relation to her area of expertise: palliative care.
I am anxious that the panel that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is now proposing is being presented as a response to the comments of Dr Sarah Cox in relation to multi-professional teams, when it is clear that she meant something quite different. My interpretation of what she said was that the initial assessment should be done by a multi-professional team; what is being proposed here is something that happens much later in the process.
Kim Leadbeater
To be clear, the point I have tried to make with regard to the evidence that we received was just that there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach, wherever it happens.
Sarah Olney
I am glad to have had that clarification; however, it is really important to reflect on the fact that Dr Sarah Cox said that it would be considerably preferable to have the input of a multidisciplinary team at the earliest possible stage. That is not what is being proposed with these new clauses.
Kim Leadbeater
The point is that it has to happen at every stage, and I think the evidence that we heard was that it does happen. I know from the experiences of family and friends of mine who have had cancer that it does happen. There is a multidisciplinary approach; there is an oncologist, a nursing team and a doctor. That does happen, and nothing in the Bill will take away from that.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member, but I think she is responding to a slightly different point from the one that I made.
There was further written evidence from Dr Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, on 25 February. He wrote:
“To clarify any misunderstanding, the current Bill does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.
Under the Bill, patient assessments are conducted solely by two doctors without input from a wider MPT. While an amendment proposes the involvement of a panel—including a social worker and psychiatrist—this panel is introduced only at the end of the process and does not participate in the patient’s direct assessment.
We wish to make it clear that the point that Dr Cox was making in oral evidence was that having two independent doctors, working alone, is not an adequate model to safeguard either patients or professionals, and that stipulating that the initial assessments must be carried within a multi-professional team model would strengthen the Bill.”
Kim Leadbeater
Does the hon. Member not agree that by accepting amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans, we have early intervention with psychiatric analysis at a very early stage, when either of the doctors feels it is necessary?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful for amendment 6 and to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans for tabling it. I put on record, however, that I do not think that the panel that we are discussing addresses my earlier concerns. I wanted to make that absolutely clear by highlighting the further evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine. The panel proposed by this group of amendments does not address its concerns, or the concerns of many other people who were saying that there needs to be a multi-professional team.
Jake Richards
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21 and the accompanying amendments. I hope also to deal with some amendments tabled to new clause 21.
On Second Reading, I and many other hon. Members said that the Bill was the strongest and safest assisted dying law in the world. I want to be clear that I stand by every word of that, but this change will make the Bill far stronger and far more resilient to questions of capacity and coercion and therefore far safer. It will ensure a further independent layer of assurance: a panel of experts chaired by a senior lawyer to hold the process to account, to ensure that every avenue of inquiry has been explored and to hold professionals in our healthcare system to account when it is appropriate to do so.
The change will replace a single High Court judge, a person with no particular expertise in the issues at hand, with a panel that will adopt a more holistic approach. The social worker will delve a little deeper into the personal circumstances of each individual. The psychiatrist will ask any necessary questions about capacity. They will serve alongside a senior lawyer to ensure that the process is necessarily formal and strict. They will have the powers to make further inquiries if they so wish.
On and after Second Reading, there were legitimate questions about the High Court function—what exactly were we asking the judge to do? I maintain that a High Court judge could have overseen the process, but it is far better and more pertinent to the issues at hand to have a multidisciplinary process involving a social worker and a psychiatrist.
This is our lawmaking process working efficiently: debate has pushed my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to think again. Working with the Government —whose role continues to be to ensure that the Bill will be workable if it is to gain Royal Assent, while remaining neutral on the principle—she has been creative in tailoring a process to the matters at hand. That must be welcomed.
This is new law. The change that the Bill would enact is profound and therefore requires a very new safeguarding process. This is the key point. The panel would not be there to adjudicate on a dispute, undertake a trial or undertake an inquiry; it would be there to ensure that the process is safe. A person would come to the panel seeking assistance to which they are entitled under the law, and the panel would ensure that the process through which their eligibility has been decided has been rigorous and safe.
It is also important to note that the panel would simply regulate and scrutinise an ongoing doctor-patient relationship. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been received, there is a period for reflection and continued assessment. That is crucial, because it means that normal rules of appeal are not appropriate—I will come back to some of the amendments in that regard. Even once the panel’s work is done, the co-ordinating doctor and the commissioner will remain available for reconsideration and oversight.
I want to deal with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the change set out in the amendments tabled to new clause 21 and others. To my mind, the process should not be adversarial, because it is inherently inquisitorial. What is the dispute that is being decided? The person is deemed to have capacity by two doctors, and perhaps a psychiatrist, to make a decision, and is seeking an eligibility certificate. The starting point must surely be that the person should be allowed to do so. To set up some bizarre dispute where none exists would be counterproductive and unsettling to the person at the centre of the process. It would be a waste of public funds, but more importantly it would be a waste of time—time, in the context of a person who is dying.
The process is not analogous to the Court of Protection, where there are disputes as to capacity, best interests and welfare. It is not analogous to a court approval hearing, where there may be legal arguments as to the appropriate nature of an award or the arrangements for it. It is not analogous to a deprivation of liberty order, where in all likelihood a person would seek not to be deprived of their liberty. It is not analogous to private children’s proceedings, where the child’s welfare is paramount. This is a person seeking help for themselves. The principle of choice and autonomy at the end of life means that that process must be patient-centred and begin from an appreciation of those principles.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech in defence of the change, but could he help me understand something? He said that he supported the previous proposal, involving a High Court judge; he is now suggesting that it would be completely inappropriate to have any sort of judicial oversight of the process. How could it have worked better?
The hon. Gentleman talks about there being no need for any sort of adversarial system, but does he not recognise that there might be another side to the story, and that it would be appropriate for somebody, whether that is a judge or someone else, to hear arguments against the application?
Jake Richards
Let me deal with the first point first. A High Court judge could have exercised this function themselves. As I set out in public very soon after Second Reading, I was struck by the fact that we were asking a High Court judge to do this, even though they have no particular expertise in the issues that so concerned hon. Members on Second Reading, whether they voted in favour of the Bill or against it. I thought about the process more, as we are all doing, to try to understand what it would look like in practice. What questions might be asked? Where does a panel or judge need to go? To my mind, psychiatrists and social workers are much better placed than High Court judges to know what avenues to further explore.
I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman’s second question.
Danny Kruger
I was making the point that there is surely some value in what the hon. Gentleman describes as an adversarial process, in which the decision maker is required to consider whether there are circumstances that the applicant is not presenting.
Jake Richards
I will come on to that issue. First, there are avenues for the panel to have information put before it that will be pertinent to the decision at hand and that may be pivotal to that process. That is not quite adversarial. Secondly, there is always a route for an adversarial contest in this matter through judicial review. I hope that that will be very rare, but it is certainly possible, and that has to be maintained. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and the Minister would accept that that would be an avenue.
The panel will have an array of information to consider. It will have two reports: one from the co-ordinating doctor and one from the independent doctor. In any event, it is often likely to seek medical records. It will speak to the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor about capacity and any issues of coercion. Crucially, it will speak to the person themselves unless there are extraordinary circumstances that oblige it not to. One can imagine the vast array of circumstances that will come before the panel, but it will have the discretion and freedom to explore as appropriate. That will be a process that is appreciative of the specific facts before the panel.
I made this point earlier, but it is important to remember that this is a very human moment. A person is dying; they come to the panel seeking help. It is right to ensure that there are hurdles to consideration for eligibility, but the idea that a person should be forced to win a trial or a case, or see through complex litigation, is surely not right.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. I thank him for putting the human being back at the centre of the process; sadly, in this Committee we can forget to do that. Early on, we had Nathaniel Dye here, who is a terminal cancer patient. He has just had a 12-month prognosis. The thought of making that man jump through hoops and over hurdles breaks my heart. I understand that we have to do it, but these are the people that we are actually talking about when we discuss the Bill.
Jake Richards
I agree, and I hope to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend made in her important speech. To mandate that a barrister instructed by the Official Solicitor, or indeed the panel, has to put questions to a person who may have only a few weeks left to live is not only highly inappropriate, but unworkable. What instructions is this barrister working from? Do they have to suppose that somebody who clearly has capacity does not? If not, do they ask questions about the circumstances of the person that would be asked by the panel in any event?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West suggested that the Official Solicitor would be working for the person. Well, the person is coming to this panel seeking assistance, so what on earth is the Official Solicitor or their legal representative going to ask of the person they are taking instructions from? To what extent would they be allowed to go on a fishing expedition, delving deep into a person’s relationships to assess any evidence of coercion? That goes back to my original point: what are their instructions? Who is asking them to do what?
I see the force in the amendments from my hon. Friend as to burden of proof, but I deem them inappropriate. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the more complex issues at play, such as capacity. The Mental Capacity Act states that where there is a doubt about a person’s capacity, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a lack of capacity, on the balance of probabilities. That is the correct approach. In any event, if the panel has any doubts as to capacity, surely it will be obliged—as is set out in amendment 6 to clause 9, which the Committee has just accepted—to seek further psychiatric assessment. It is important to note that the panel will have powers to instruct further expert assessment and reports.
If we implement the criminal standard, the doctors who are part of the process— not only the co-ordinating doctor and the individual doctor, but treating doctors, because we should always remember that someone who is terminally ill will almost certainly be receiving treatment in the NHS—will be working to a completely different burden of proof from the panel’s. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the innately inquisitorial nature of the panel’s role. That is important. It is very easy to look at the definition of the balance of probabilities and find weaknesses in it, but when we consider what actually happens in practice, I submit that those weaknesses are not often there.
The panel will have a conversation with the professionals and with the person and will consider the response. If doubts creep in, it will not just stop and make a decision on the balance of probabilities; it will continue to search. The more serious the doubts it encounters, the more evidence it will need for those doubts to be overcome. That is how the law has developed on the balance of probabilities in all other areas, and no doubt it will be the same in this area. Importantly, unlike with many other tribunals or courts, the decision must be unanimous, so if the social worker spots something that the psychiatrist or lawyer does not, the case will go no further.
What about the role of third parties? As I have set out before, this is a personal decision, but I also accept that no man is an island—a phrase often used by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. The process has to strike a real balancing act: allowing third-party information to be considered, but in a proportionate manner that respects individual autonomy. To my mind, the views of third parties are not relevant. Their views on whether the person is making the best decision for themselves are not relevant. This is not a welfare decision. Equally, it must be right that third parties—family members and others—can ensure that the panel has sight of the relevant information. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been given, the co-ordinating doctor will continue to be responsible for assessing new information, and their duties will continue until the final moments, as the Bill sets out.
Jake Richards
In my mind, any decision to give a certificate of eligibility could be subject to judicial review.
Third parties can put evidence before the panel to be considered, but it is not right that third parties might challenge the application. As I have set out before, this is not a dispute but a rigorous safeguarding process. If they have information about the person’s capacity, their diagnosis or any other relevant factors, they can and must ensure that the panel—if not the doctors or indeed the police—be seized of the information. Third parties can appeal the decision by way of judicial review. That would provide for a decision that was
“wrong, or…unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings”,
per amendment (a) to new clause 17. An injunction would be applied and the matter would have to be dealt with expeditiously. It is worth saying that all the evidence suggests that that would happen incredibly rarely. In Spain—
Daniel Francis
My hon. Friend is about to refer to Spain, as am I. Article 10 of the relevant Spanish law gives a right of appeal on a point of law to a higher court. Does he believe that we will be in line with the position in Spain? How long does he envision judicial review taking, given that we are dealing with somebody who is at the end of their life?
Jake Richards
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes: judicial review is clearly an exercisable option in this case. I said “expeditiously” because lots of cases are heard expeditiously; High Court judges hear cases in the middle of the night, if there is a certain urgency. In these cases, one might imagine similar circumstances, but I must stress that they would happen incredibly rarely. All the evidence suggests that. In Spain, where a not dissimilar model is in place, such an approach is rarely used by family members. The vast majority of families attend the panel because they want to offer support and love to the person who has made the choice.
Daniel Francis
I just want to confirm that either side has the right of appeal in Spain.
Jake Richards
Yes.
The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that the process is workable. In Spain, 20% of people die before the panel hears their case. We must be very careful not to create something that is so burdensome as to be completely pointless. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley aim successfully between ensuring flexibility and rigour. Each case will be different—more so than in any other set of proceedings that I can imagine, and I have thought hard. There will no doubt be some that are incredibly complex, in which the panel may require further assessments and hear from relevant experts, but there will be far more that are solemn and serious but straightforward, and that is correct.
Other amendments, such as amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, seek to mandate certain procedural steps. While I have great respect for her as a former colleague, I fundamentally disagree with her amendment, which would require that the panel “must consider” hearing from persons who may be
“interested in the welfare of the person”.
I repeat that this is not a welfare decision. The panel, just like the High Court judge, is not saying, “What do I think is in the best interests of this person?” It is ensuring that the person has made the decision per clause 1, where we started: “settled”, “informed” and “voluntary”. We enter new ground with this law change, and that is why it is a new process, but to my mind it is safer and workable. Colleagues can be reassured, and I urge people to support the change.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at the end of an excellent speech. Does he agree that the provision in new schedule 2 that allows the commissioner, who would be a sitting or previous judge, to give guidance and set procedure for the operation of panels would answer some of the concerns raised by those who think that there would not be sufficient judicial input into the procedure of the panels?
Jake Richards
That is an important point, because the change, as drafted in the various amendments, provides for real flexibility. That may cause others some concern, but to my mind it is a reassurance, because it will mean that a weighty figure, the commissioner, will be able to set out rules and regulations for the process to make sure that it is rigorous but is not so burdensome as to be pointless.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to new schedule 2. The assisted dying review panel comprises a legal member and the chair, a psychiatrist member and a social worker member. I welcome this third tier of safeguarding and its range of specialities, as laid out in new clause 21.
My amendment (a) would amend paragraph 4, which concerns membership of panels, by inserting a new paragraph 4(3):
“Each member of a panel must have fluent proficiency in the Welsh language if services or functions in the Act are to be provided to an individual in Welsh.”
I emphasise the “if”, because it is in certain circumstances. I have previously touched on the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. It appears that the panel can be defined as a legal proceeding and will therefore be required to follow the pre-devolution 1993 Act. Let us consider whether that is sufficient for the level of safeguarding that all Committee members want to provide.
Section 22(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 states:
“In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates’ court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court; and any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly.”
I quote that as the nearest comparator. That means that the 1993 Act, in the situation we are discussing, enables people to speak Welsh and for interpreters to be provided as necessary. That gives people the right to speak Welsh, but it does not give them the right to be heard in Welsh in their own voice. If the legal personnel do not speak Welsh, their decisions will be based on the interpreted communication. The key question is whether we are content to accept the use of interpreters as intermediaries between the individual and the assisted dying panel.
Dr Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician from Colwyn Bay, has written, with 78 other clinicians from Wales as co-signatories, to parliamentarians about their concerns. She states:
“In practice use of interpreters does not provide full communication of appropriate knowledge from clinician to patients. This is because interpreters are often not experienced and confident enough to discuss such complex and legal issues as assisted dying. Even the best possible practice by interpreters cannot match communicating in the person’s own preferred language. Every person whose preferred or primary language is Welsh and who communicates as a family or socially in Welsh should have access to important health information in Welsh. Any necessary assessment of capacity for purposes of consideration of assisted dying, and any assessment of coercion, must be in person and in Welsh if that is the person’s preferred language.”
Dr Davies further states that it is not possible to confidently assess the decision-making capacity of a Welsh speaker in their second language. Superficial conversations in English often fail to demonstrate that a Welsh speaker with significant health problems is confused or does not have a good understanding of their own health condition and treatment options. The presence of confusion or lack of information may become apparent only during detailed conversations with a Welsh-speaking healthcare professional. It can be extremely challenging to detect the presence of coercion, and the nuances of family dynamics will not be apparent to a non-Welsh-speaking professional when the language spoken in the family is Welsh, so it will not be possible to make any assessment of the presence or absence of coercion. That is what Dr Davies says.
The office of the Welsh Language Commissioner believes that there must be provision in the Bill to ensure that a person’s choice of language is considered, recorded and matched with further provisions, including a Welsh-speaking specialist panel. The commissioner’s office agreed that such an amendment relating to the specialist panel is very important. It stressed that a Welsh-speaking panel will be able to provide the same service in English to individuals who are not receiving assistance through Welsh, so the requirement in amendment (a) should not, in and of itself, necessarily mean recruiting more individuals or more panels. None the less, I feel that I must allay fears that it would require every member of every panel in Wales to be able to speak Welsh. It does not. That is not the intention of the amendment, nor is it in its wording. Fluent proficiency is required of all panel members only when the panel is making a decision in relation to a person whose preferred language is Welsh.
So far, the response I have received from Ministers is that this private Member’s Bill does not require specific requirements on Welsh language rights in it and that these rights are already enshrined in law. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I have written to the Minister as regards discussing how the legislation should operate in relation to Wales and devolution—he had previously committed to a meeting—but we have yet to receive a response. I have withdrawn previous amendments in anticipation of that very meeting, but in this instance—as the provision of interpreters to communicate between the individual and the people charged with being the final guardians of safeguarding is wrong—I will push the amendment to a vote, because I do not believe that the issue is covered in legislation as things stand.
Naz Shah
Part 2 of five, I might add, Mrs Harris.
I rise to oppose new clause 14 from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. The clause would create the post of a voluntary assisted dying commissioner. It is quite an extraordinary clause, and I am not sure we have seen anything like it in recent legislation. What I am sure of is that we have not seen a law as far-reaching as this introduced without any of the detailed work that should have been done on it by the civil service.
The voluntary assisted dying commissioner—I will call them the VAD commissioner—created by the new clause would have unusual powers. The commissioner would select the members of the panel, who would in turn decide on people’s assisted dying applications. The commissioner would be the authority to whom people could appeal if their application was refused. The commissioner would also decide if particular panel members had made any mistakes or shown any misconduct in their work.
In this country, we do not give one person the job of selecting judges, overseeing their work and then functioning as a court of appeal, even if that one person is extremely well qualified. That is for good reason. But the new clause suggests giving all those powers to one person. Hon. Members might object and say that the comparison is not exact, and that there will be fewer assisted dying cases heard by the proposed new panels than there are cases heard before the courts, but that misses the point. We do not put all the powers over the judiciary into the hands of one man or woman because it would be a lot of work for them. No, we do not do that, because we do not wish to put too much power into the hands of any one person. However, under the new clause, we would do exactly that.
Danny Kruger
This conversation is very helpful, and the point the hon. Lady makes is absolutely right. If we are going to rely on JR as a sort of appeal process, we need to make it clear how that would work. Would there be legal aid? How quickly could these things be done? I think that that needs to be built in. Does she agree?
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that we have not thought this through enough, because that process has not been laid out. We really need to think about these potential eventualities.
When such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers, and so will the media. They will want to know who the panel members were and why they made the judgment they did. In such cases, who would investigate whether panel members had got it wrong? The commissioner who had appointed them? The commissioner, or any person, no matter how honest and how learned, would come back to that question with a very strong bias. The commissioner will mark their own homework. That is not a system that anyone can argue will provide proper safeguards.
Hon. Members might object that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be a very senior judge. According to the new clause, the commissioner
“must hold or have held office as a judge of—
the Supreme Court
the Court of Appeal, or
the High Court.”
I agree that only people of high intelligence and good standing become judges in those courts, but that does not mean that the very highest judges in the land do not sometimes make mistakes—sometimes very bad ones.
Jack Abbott
If we follow that argument, does that mean that we would support the new clauses? If we are moving from that single point of reference—a High Court judge and judicial review—it is surely much safer to move to what is proposed.
Naz Shah
The truth is—I said this in my previous speech, which I will not repeat, as instructed by you, Mrs Harris—that neither of the safeguards is strong enough. As it was, the Bill was not strong enough—that has been recognised and changes have been proposed—but neither is the idea of a commissioner.
There is another great problem raised by this set of changes to the Bill: they seem likely to increase the prospect of group-think when it comes to members of the panel. I would argue that that danger has been greatly increased by the move away from the High Court judge model that was originally in the Bill.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley introduced the Bill on Second Reading, she reassured the House that all assisted dying applications would have to be examined by a High Court judge. There were problems with that proposal, which is why she abandoned it. But there was one strength in making a High Court judge the arbiter: the Crown does not appoint High Court judges on the basis of whether they agree with assisted dying. We could all reasonably expect High Court judges to have a range of views on assisted dying; there is no reason I can think of that would mean that High Court judges, as a body, were biased in favour of assisted dying.
Something different will happen if a commissioner selects people to serve on these panels. Anyone serving on a panel will know that they will have to approve some applications for assisted death. We do not know how many applications for assisted death the Government expect to have. We also do not know how many social workers, psychiatrists and lawyers would be unwilling to approve any assisted death applications at all—I do not want to repeat myself, but I will be referring back to psychiatrists in another amendment. However, the number of psychiatrists who are strongly opposed to assisted death is very high, according the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have also heard strong reservations expressed by the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers. Therefore, many professionals will choose not to sit on these panels, because they will not want to approve any cases. That means that some panel members are likely to end up dealing with dozens of cases per year. That poses the danger that some of the people who sit most on these panels will be advocates of assisted dying and will approve applications that other members may not have.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for discussing her view of the approach of the proposed panel members. Does she recognise that all three of those professions have professional requirements to act with integrity and in accordance with the law? It is highly unlikely that they will push forward, as she seems to suggest, and risk their professional accreditation.
Naz Shah
I am not questioning people’s integrity; I am putting it to the Committee that people have biases. We all have subconscious biases. We have things that we like; we know that that exists, whether it is a subconscious bias or a conscious bias. As human beings, we all have that. In this instance, I am suggesting that if we have members of a panel who choose to be there because they have a fundamental belief, which is different from that of those who oppose assisted dying, there is a risk of subconscious bias and group-think.
The Chair
Order. I call Rachel Hopkins for an intervention, but we need to keep to the point and not labour one particular thing.
Rachel Hopkins
The point I was making was that no professional would want to risk their professional accreditation and career by allowing a complete bias to take over any decision making. In fact, I would suggest that some may want to prove their integrity by being involved in these decisions and making them in line with their professional practice.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. She said that High Court judges make mistakes, which is undoubtedly true. She also said that the panel may be guilty of unconscious bias. Is there any layer of scrutiny that would satisfy her? What does she think about jury trials?
Naz Shah
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I reject the facetiousness of his point.
Let me speak to the issue of unconscious bias in relation to the proposal before us. In 1992, there was a jury trial, which found my mother guilty of murdering an abusive partner. In 1998, I went to the High Court and put it to three white middle-class judges that my mother could not tell the truth because of the abuse, the dishonour and the concept of izzat, which defined her existence as a woman. They were not capable of believing that, because they did not have that cultural understanding —so, yes, unconscious bias does exist, even in criminal cases in courts of law.
Returning to my argument, I remind hon. Members of the testimony of Dr Ryan Spielvogel from California, who said:
“when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, ‘Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo. Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.’ Then I say, ‘I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.’…The number of times that people look at me and say, ‘You can do that? That’s an option here?’ is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 105, Q143.]
I wonder whether I would be comfortable—this is just a personal thing, but I want to put it out there for people to think about—about a doctor such as that, who really supports assisted dying, being on the panel. I am not casting aspersions on him, but I genuinely am unsure.
Of course, the panel will be chaired by lawyers. I would like to remind hon. Members of the evidence of Professor Meredith Blake, who is a senior legal adviser to the Western Australian government on their assisted dying law. Professor Blake’s evidence was quite extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked her:
“Does it concern you that a large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason?”
She replied:
“That is not the evidence that we have got.”
My hon. Friend responded:
“Let me just clarify. The state’s own report in 2023-24 had 35%.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 220, Q284.]
I do not recall having a satisfactory answer from Professor Blake to that question, but please feel free to check Hansard.
If we see a series of questionable decisions by one or more panel member, the only official scrutiny will come from the person who appointed them to do their jobs, and that is not a robust safeguard. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said earlier that decisions would be unanimous, but that is not entirely correct, and I am happy to point to the relevant bit in the Bill. If two people decide they agree, and the other decides to stay quiet, that would be seen as a unanimous decision, and the panel would proceed. I am happy to point that bit of the Bill out to my hon. Friend, as I would love to see an amendment if one were needed.
Danny Kruger
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that each member of the panel has a veto over the decision so, in a sense, there has to be unanimity about the approval. However, she is absolutely right that if two members disagree with one another about any other aspect of their proceedings, including who to invite to give evidence, they could be overruled, so there is not unanimity there.
Naz Shah
I completely agree. That is the case in the Bill, which raises concerns.
Finally, Parliament needs to get back into the habit of holding powerful commissioners accountable. There is no mechanism in the Bill for removing a commissioner even if they somehow failed significantly in their duties. We might say to ourselves, “If that happened, they would do the right thing and resign,” or, “They would resign if the Prime Minister said something in public.” I am sorry, but we cannot leave that to chance.
There has been a very telling example recently of just how badly quasi-judicial institutions can fail, and just how hard it is to get their senior leadership to accept responsibility. The Criminal Cases Review Commission mishandled the Andrew Malkinson case. Mr Malkinson was falsely convicted of raping a woman in 2003. She had been raped by another man.
Naz Shah
This relates to my point, Mrs Harris, I promise you. DNA evidence subsequently proved that Andrew Malkinson was indeed innocent, yet he was allowed to remain in jail.
Members of this House expressed serious disquiet about the conduct of the chairwoman of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, over the Malkinson case. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary called for Ms Pitcher to step down, but she refused to do so and remained in office until January. I note that Ms Pitcher remains chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission—and that is where the link is.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is saying that there is no mechanism to remove the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Actually, paragraph 4(5) of new schedule 1 says:
“The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—
(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office”—
I think that addresses a lot of the concerns that she has been expressing—
“or
(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.”
There is a mechanism in the new schedule that would give the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I will look at it, but that was not my understanding.
There are multiple reasons to oppose new clause 21. With it, the Bill will reduce the impartiality that would have been provided by having a High Court judge rule on applications. It will increase the risk that a large number of decisions are taken by people who are enthusiastic proponents of assisted dying, which will reduce patient safety. It will also create a powerful new commissioner, who will appoint panel members and will then rule on whether they have made the right decision. That same commissioner will also be able to decide whether to overturn a panel’s decision to reject an assisted death application. That is a huge amount of power to put in one person’s hands and we should not do so. I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause.
Sean Woodcock
May I say what a privilege it is to have you in the Chair, Mrs Harris? [Laughter.] Clearly, I know how to win and lose an audience.
I rise to speak to amendment (d) to new clause 21, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North. I will start by saying how glad I am that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has recognised some of the concerns regarding the multidisciplinary panel, and I welcome the improvements that she has made in the new clause.
I am pleased that the panel “must” now hear from the person to whom the referral relates, whereas previously it was the case that the panel “may” hear from them. That is a partial concession, but an important one. It will allow the commissioner to have greater scrutiny over the application and better assess the person’s eligibility for assisted dying.
Amendment (d) is a technical amendment. We have discussed a number of such amendments before in this Committee, many of which have fallen for reasons that I understand, even if I do not agree with them, including on the basis that doctors are already having these conversations and we do not want to police them. The panel stage is brand new; given that and given the level of public scrutiny of the Bill, I make no apology for supporting putting something into primary legislation to say what is expected of this process. It is very important that we make sure from the off that we get things right.
I am deeply concerned about some of the potential oversights in the panel model. The purpose of the panel is to provide meaningful scrutiny of a person’s application. The panel draws on a wider range of experts to assess the complex aspects of the application, such as assessing for coercion and capacity. However, the panel’s ability to fulfil this scrutinising role is in many ways quite limited.
Amendment (d), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address the significant oversights in new clause 21. It would introduce a far more comprehensive set of requirements for the panel in its review. Those changes are not barriers to access; rather, the amendment would ensure that the panel has a far wider range of information—a theme to which I referred earlier—on which to review the application for an assisted death. Fundamentally, the amendment would give the panel more tools to conduct meaningful scrutiny.
However, let me list what the panel is not required to do under new clause 21. It does not have to hear from one of the two registered medical practitioners. It will hear from the other registered medical practitioner, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. Likewise, it will hear from the person, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. The person may have a proxy to sign their declarations, but the panel does not have to hear from or question the proxy. The panel does not have to hear from or question any other person. Let us be clear who that includes: the panel could assess the person’s application without any information from the person’s relatives, family members, friends, social workers or care workers.
New clause 21 states only that the panel
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
Subsection (4) makes it clear that, whereas paragraphs (a) to (c) require the panel to hear by live audio from the person seeking assisted dying, the evidence that the panel chooses to take from anybody else could be in written form.
Let me draw out with an example what that might mean in practice. A person is diagnosed with a terminal illness—in this case, heart failure arising from coronary heart disease. Both doctors approve the person’s application for assisted dying, on the balance of probability. The person has a physical disability and asks a proxy—a neighbour, say—to sign off the application. The first doctor speaks to the panel via video link restating the schedule forms and providing no new information. The panel then hears from the person, also via video link. It cannot see the person, but after hearing their statement it decides that it is satisfied that the conditions are met and approves the person’s assisted death.
The panel has not spoken to the second doctor and has not put any questions to the second doctor or to the person applying for an assisted death. Incredibly, the panel has not spoken to the proxy, who may just be someone of good standing in the community. Nor has it spoken to the person’s relatives, to anyone standing to benefit from the person’s death or to anyone in the person’s care. Any one of those people could have concerns that the person is being coerced into an assisted death. They may even have evidence of coercive behaviour. However, at no point is the panel required to consider speaking to any of those people.
Time and again, the Committee has heard from experts that coercion and controlling behaviour can be extremely difficult to detect. Often, the person will not reveal that they are suffering from that form of coercion, yet it is often those who are closest to the sufferer—a close relative, a member of the family or a social worker—who pick up the signals. Any of them could be looking out for the person’s welfare and noticing them becoming more isolated and emotionally manipulated by another. At no point, however, does the panel have to consider hearing from that person. If this Bill is going to do everything to safeguard against the risk of coercion, as everybody on this Committee believes it should, that should change.
The panel must consider listening to the people closest to the person. Amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address those flaws by giving the panel a higher standard of scrutiny. The panel would have to hear from and question both doctors. It would have to question the person, not simply hear from them. If the person has a proxy, as under clause 15, the panel would have to hear from and question that proxy. Crucially, the panel would have to consider hearing from and questioning persons properly interested, and any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness. It would also be able to hear from and question any other person whom new clause 21 states can be asked to report to the panel.
The changes in the amendment would significantly improve the scrutiny provided by the multidisciplinary panel. It would provider a broader range and greater detail of evidence for the panel to base its review on. Ultimately, it would make the multidisciplinary review far more meaningful. Why is this greater scrutiny necessary? This is about protecting the vulnerable people who are easily forgotten. The amendment seeks to provide the strongest possible protection for them. This robust and comprehensive scrutiny is necessary to have a better chance of preventing the worst abuses.
I foresee one possible criticism from some hon. Members, which is that the amendment would slow down the decision-making process for people who are at no risk of coercion. That may well be true, but if the amendment is accepted, the panel would have to question both doctors, not just hear from one, and it would have to determine whether to hear from and question other people. In straightforward cases, in which the panel discovers no initial evidence that disquiets it, a small amount of time might be added to the hearing; in cases in which the panel finds evidence that means it may need to dig deeper, there could be a greater delay to the decision.
Personally, I do not see how we can avoid that. If we are serious about having safeguards to protect the most vulnerable, we should and must accept it. The process of vetting applications will take more time on average, and a lot more time in some cases, but the alternative is a simpler and faster system in which it will be much harder for the panel to detect coercion and other disqualifying factors. In that case, the chances will be higher that some coercive or abusive people will find it possible to push people towards an assisted death. Such a system is what we see in new clause 21, as drafted. We face an inescapable trade-off. We cannot lift protection for those who are most vulnerable to coercion because it would make the process easier for people who do not face that risk. I urge hon. Members seriously to consider supporting the amendment.
Sarah Green
I rise to speak to two aspects of this group of amendments. The first is the inclusion of social workers. When we first started receiving written evidence, I found the submissions from social workers the most compelling. I agreed with them that their profession has a key role to play in the process. I am pleased that they will feature on the panel: I believe that that will strengthen the safeguards in the Bill.
My second point relates to amendment (a) to new schedule 2, in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I was fortunate to grow up in a Welsh-speaking part of rural north Wales. I am a Welsh speaker, and Welsh is the first language of some of my friends, my neighbours and my family members. It is the language that they dream in, the language they count in and the language that they are most comfortable using, so when it comes to end-of-life conversations it is important that they can use the language in which they are most proficient and fluent.
Should an individual choose to access an assisted death through the medium of Welsh, they should be able to do so without the use of an interpreter. Crucially for the panel, that means that where an individual has chosen that route, the panel will need Welsh proficiency. Welsh speakers have had the right to ask for services in Welsh for years now, so assisted dying should be no different. That is why services in Welsh need to be on the face of the Bill. I wholeheartedly support the amendment and will vote for it if the right hon. Member chooses to press it.
Sojan Joseph
I will not talk for long, because most of my points have already been raised. I welcome the provisions in new schedule 2 on membership of the panel. I was concerned about all patients having access to a psychiatrist and a social worker, so the measures proposed are welcome and reassuring. My reservation, which other hon. Members have raised, is that it would be even better for people to have earlier access to the panel. I am also concerned about whether the panel would have the power to overturn the decisions taken by the two doctors and whether it might be influenced by them.
In addition, will the Health Minister clarify his response to amendment 1? He said that specifying one category of doctor, a registered psychiatrist, would create capacity issues. I hope that that will not be an issue when we have a psychiatrist on the panel. Otherwise, I welcome the proposals.
Danny Kruger
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. I do not know whether this is appropriate, but was there a proposal to adjourn? I am conscious that my hon. Friend is about to make a very long speech.
The Chair
Yes, there was, but you cannot move the Adjournment while the hon. Lady is still speaking.
Rebecca Paul
As long as I can make another speech, I am comfortable with stopping at this point and giving everyone a break from my voice.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Bambos Charalambous.)
Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It may assist the Committee to know that, when there is no great controversy about a clause and all I am doing is reminding people what is in the clause and the explanatory notes, I will move that the clause stand part formally. We are now starting to discuss part 5 of the Bill, which relates to GDPR. This clause is completely and utterly self-explanatory.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Turner. This part of the Bill relates to GDPR. Although there are some amendments that we will debate later, it makes sensible and long-overdue clarifications with regard to GDPR and the interaction with data protection, particularly through some updates to the use of secondary data for scientific research, which I suspect we will discuss when we come to the next clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Meaning of research and statistical purposes
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 67, page 75, line 26, leave out
“and that is conducted in the public interest”.
This amendment removes words from new paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the UK GDPR (meaning of processing for the purposes of scientific research). The words were inserted at Report stage in the Lords.
The UK has a proud tradition of innovative research. Our researchers are at the forefront in fields from quantum computing to medicine—for example, leading on pioneering vaccine development during the covid-19 pandemic. Scientific research can bring life-changing benefits to our society and economy. Given that importance, the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for processing personal data for research purposes while maintaining key safeguards. The clause, as proposed by their lordships, would require an up-front public interest test for processing to be considered as scientific research and eligible for these accommodations. We disagree with that.
We agree with wanting to avoid misuse of the term “scientific research”, but as the Royal Society has said clearly, the reasonableness test that is now in the Bill provides adequate protection against that. The new test, provided by the Lords, would also be at odds with the internationally recognised Frascati definition, which does not mention an up-front public interest test.
Such a test would be a new burden on many researchers. The Royal Society is concerned that that could have a negative effect on the conduct of research. The Government agree and are especially concerned about the impact on basic and curiosity driven research. The public benefits from such research may not be known at the time, yet with hindsight may be overwhelming. Many of the great discoveries in scientific history, from penicillin to the electron, originated from research that had no anticipated public interest benefit. No one could know how valuable they would be to us now. Even the mRNA-based vaccines that saved millions of lives during the covid-19 pandemic drew on curiosity-driven research that for years had had no practical applications.
That is research that we should be supporting, not stifling. An up-front public interest test could have a chilling effect on it, which is not in the long-term public interest. Our amendment would therefore remove the public interest test inserted by their lordships.
Dr Spencer
I listened carefully to the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s position on the public interest test, which was extensively debated in the other place. I have a great deal of sympathy with what their lordships were trying to achieve in parts of that amendment. We are talking about the secondary use of data for scientific research and, as I understand it, the public interest test is used in other types of scientific research tests—for example, with public health data. Therefore this is not something which is completely alien to the concept of defining scientific research. However, I do concede there is an issue with how one can define scientific research.
I think what people are nervous about—particularly in some of the conversations I have around this new definition of scientific research for use for secondary data processing—is this being hijacked by artificial intelligence data companies as a way of getting around some of the challenges with using big datasets for which they do not necessarily have licensing arrangements. I know we are going to come on to that later in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain his thoughts and considerations about removing this public interest test. How would that interact with some of the concerns about AI and data use?
From a personal perspective, my concept of scientific research has an altruistic component to it. At least with the scientific research with which I was involved, the whole point was that it was information that is shared freely. Clearly there are challenges and considerations on which one needs to focus when it comes to research being done for commercial benefit. I know part of the debate in the other place was about commercial versus non-commercial research. It is important that scientific research can be commercial. In fact, it must be. However, I appreciate that there is a sentiment that their lordships were putting forward as part of the test.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address, first, some of the concerns around AI companies and secondly how we can capture the essence of scientific research so that when people are do secondary data analysis it is done properly. When it comes to the audit component, a lot of this data analysis is people marking their own homework. Some of the data is not going through human rights committees and being scrutinised in that sense. What assurances can the Minister give that the process will operate properly and that research that is scientific will be legitimately so once these clauses are passed?
Chris Bryant
First, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are other areas where there is a public interest test. In those other areas it is actually very narrow, however. The public interest test is currently only applied to research using special category data under schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and public health data. It is quite specific. This is why we are nervous about extending the test across the whole of data protection. It is appropriate, we think, to have that extra protection for those particularly sensitive areas, but we think it would be disproportionate to make all researchers meet that standard, regardless of the type of data they are using.
The hon. Gentleman mentions AI companies, and the matter was of course raised in the Lords. It is worth reminding the Committee that the clause narrows rather than expands the definition of scientific research. As the provisions of the Bill make clear, web scrapers seeking to reuse personal data for purposes such as training AI models must have a lawful basis. Before even considering the meaning of scientific research, a web scraper would need to pass the balancing test to use the legitimate interest ground. The Information Commissioner’s Office outcomes report, published last year, emphasised that:
“Web scraping for generative AI training is a high-risk, invisible processing activity. Where insufficient transparency measures contribute to people being unable to exercise their rights, generative AI developers are likely to struggle to pass the balancing test.”
In other words, AI companies should not be doing precisely that which he is concerned they would.
Dr Spencer
The Minister says that the changes in the clause narrow the scientific test. That certainly was not my understanding and I would be grateful if he could clarify. Currently, under scientific research, only three criteria can be used under GDPR: statistical purposes, archiving, and genealogical-type purposes. The clause expands secondary data use under GDPR quite substantially.
Chris Bryant
If an area of research does not currently count as scientific research, it will not do so under the Bill. Researchers will benefit from having a clearer definition in legislation that reflects the language buried in the recitals and the current ICO guidance. We believe that improving clarity will reduce uncertainty, the risk of misinterpretations and misapplication of the law. The Government will of course monitor the reform’s impact and how researchers navigate the data protection framework. We think that will help us better understand if further changes are required.
The fundamental point is that their lordships inserted a public interest line that we are seeking to take out. They inserted it because they believed it would mean that no data would be used in a way that did not lead to eventual good outcomes. The truth is that when someone starts a piece of research based on curiosity they might have no idea what the final outcome will be. That is an important part of how most researchers work, whether in a commercial or non-commercial setting. That is why the Royal Society has unambiguously stated that if we retain their lordships’ public interest provision, it will have a chilling effect on research in the UK. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Dr Spencer
The matter turns on how we define public interest. I appreciate the concerns about the clause. Being a scientific purist, I could argue that even blue-sky research could be justified as in the public interest, provided that we all benefit from the fruits of that knowledge when it is shared. Notwithstanding that point, I will go back to the Minister’s comment. I understand that the point of the clause is to expand the definition of scientific research from the currently narrow criteria under GDPR, so there will be research that is currently not scientific research that will be permitted as a consequence of the clause.
Chris Bryant
I will try one more time to persuade the hon. Member, but I will be repeating myself. The Government are not expanding the meaning of scientific research. The Bill’s definition is completely in line with present ICO guidance, which states that commercial organisations can also carry out scientific research. Scientific research conducted by commercial organisations can have a life-changing impact, as many hon. Members have noted, but the definition does not cover any commercial activity: it only includes activities that could reasonably be viewed as scientific research.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Lawfulness of processing
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 70, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 19.
This amendment would remove subsections (2)(b) and (c) from the Bill which would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data by way of inserting a new Article into the UK GDPR.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 53, in clause 70, page 78, line 17, after “interest” insert “, excluding personal health data”.
This amendment would exclude personal health data from being a recognised legitimate interest.
Amendment 50, in clause 70, leave out from line 24 on page 78 to line 32 on page 79.
This amendment omits subsection (4), (5) and (6) which make amendments to UK GDPR to define certain data processing activities as “recognised legitimate interests”.
Victoria Collins
Clause 70 introduces “recognised legitimate interests” as a new basis for processing personal data. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of the benefits of data, we have serious concerns that clause 70, as it stands, grants excessive and unchecked power to the Secretary of State, risking the erosion of fundamental rights. Our key message is that trust and innovation go hand in hand. For us to advance and share the benefits of innovation, we must foster trust.
In the name of constructive opposition, I will talk about the several amendments that we have tabled—amendments 49, 50, 53, new clause 5 and new clause 22, which was also tabled by colleagues in the other place. These amendments are crucial to ensure vital safeguards, ensure proper parliamentary oversight and demand greater transparency. They respond directly to concerns raised on Second Reading. Moreover, they echo the concerns of new civil society organisations, including—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady can only speak to amendments 49, 53 and 50 at this point.
Victoria Collins
In the interest of time, I would like to talk about all the amendments together.
Victoria Collins
I shall talk about amendments 49, 53 and 50, which would remove the core of clause 70 that allows the direct establishment of “recognised legitimate interests”. Clause 70 risks bypassing essential parliamentary scrutiny, a point underscored by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which expressed concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight. The amendments are essential to ensure that the Data (Use and Access) Bill fosters innovation responsibly without sacrificing fundamental data protection. I urge Government to look over the proposals, which would help improve the adoption and inclusion of growing technology and its benefits. I would also welcome any proposals to improve this scrutiny when we reach Report.
Chris Bryant
The new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest in clause 70 and schedule 4 have been designed to give organisations greater confidence when processing personal data for important public interest objectives, such as preventing crime, safeguarding vulnerable individuals and protecting national security. They also ensure that non-public bodies can share information with public authorities where it is necessary and proportionate to do so without having to conduct a complex balancing test in situations where timely action is essential.
Amendment 49 would remove that provision, making it harder for organisations to share data confidently and swiftly for those public interest purposes. I recognise that the hon. Lady might be concerned that the removal of the need to do a detailed legitimate interest balancing test in this narrow set of circumstances could reduce protections, but strong safeguards remain in place, as was recognised in the House of Lords, which did not approve such an amendment. Any processing must still be necessary and proportionate and comply with data protection principles under UK GDPR to ensure that individuals’ rights continue to be protected.
Amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to amend the list of recognised legitimate interests using regulations, and delete the list itself from schedule 4 of the Bill. We believe that the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the list is a necessary safeguard to future-proof the framework. This power is not unrestricted. It is subject to strict safeguards, including parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and the requirement that any additions must serve public interest objectives under article 23(1) of the UK GDPR. Removing the power would make it more difficult to adapt the framework over time.
I have also considered amendment 53, which would prevent health data being processed under the new lawful ground, and I would argue that it conflicts with amendment 49. Health data would be processed under this new ground only in so far as that was necessary for one of the specified recognised legitimate interests in schedule 4 to the Bill. Any processing of health data would also have to meet one of the relevant criteria for processing specific category data in article 9 of UK GDPR and schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 53. I thank the Minister for his comments, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Turner. I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I am concerned not by the unchecked power of the Secretary of State under this regulation—we of course have precedents to go with under GDPR—but it is the specific and extremely high-grade personal health data that remains a concern for me.
Victoria Collins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—Parliamentary approval for changes to data safeguards—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise any power under this Act to amend, vary or remove a safeguard relating to—
(a) recognised legitimate interests,
(b) automated decision-making,
(c) the definition of ‘special category’ data, or
(d) any data subject right provided under the UK GDPR,
the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament draft regulations containing the proposed changes and an explanatory statement.
(2) The explanatory statement must include evidence from consultations with the Information Commission, data subjects, and relevant stakeholders, and an assessment of any impact on data adequacy with the European Union where they have occurred.
(3) The draft regulations referred to in subsection (1) are subject to affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would prevent ministerial changes being made to data safeguards without parliamentary debate and approval.
New clause 22—Statement on changes to recognise legitimate interest—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a statement outlining the purpose of any additions or variations to what constitutes a recognised legitimate interest if they exercise powers contained under section 70.
(2) This statement must reference—
(a) the purpose of the addition or variation,
(b) whether it is appropriate to specific data controllers, and
(c) the timeline for its relevance.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement if they add or vary what constitutes a recognised legitimate interest under powers contained in section 70.
Schedule 4.
Chris Bryant
Clause 70 and schedule 4 introduce a new lawful ground for processing personal data under article 6 of UK GDPR, allowing organisations to process data for recognised legitimate interests without conducting a balancing test. The aim is to provide legal certainty and facilitate faster data sharing for key public interest purposes such as crime prevention and safeguarding.
Victoria Collins
New clause 5 sets out that any future changes to data safeguards, including those related to recognised legitimate interests, automated decision making and special category data, must be subject to greater scrutiny in Parliament. It is essential that significant changes to our data protection go through that democratic process. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose, scope and timeline of any additional variations to recognised legitimate interests, again supporting greater transparency and accountability.
The new clauses are there to help improve public trust around data and improve the adoption and inclusion of the growing range of technology and its benefits. They are for the Government to look at when thinking about how we ensure that we bring people along with us. They will help to maintain trust and ensure that we have safeguards in line with recognised legitimate interests. If we are to accept clause 70, the Government must again assure us that robust checks and balances are truly in place.
Chris Bryant
New clause 5 seeks to strengthen parliamentary oversight of regulations that could amend the recognised legitimate interest list or the provisions on automated decision making and special category data, which we will debate in detail later. The regulation-making powers in the clause are already subject to appropriate safeguards, and have been designed with retaining our EU adequacy decisions at the forefront of our mind—we will return to the topic of EU adequacy in more detail when we reach new clause 2. It is important to respect the European Commission’s processes and its discretion in how its adequacy assessment is undertaken.
New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose of any changes to the recognised legitimate interest list, to whom they would apply and for how long. As I think I explained earlier on a previous amendment, any draft regulations laid before Parliament under these provisions will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which would lay out precisely the things the hon. Lady seeks. On that basis, I hope she will not push her two new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Information to be provided to data subjects
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Collins
Clause 77 strongly risks bypassing individual data rights by watering down transparency of the processing of personal data for reasons such as research, archiving in the public interest or statistical purposes. Although we welcome efforts to modernise data law, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency—a cornerstone of public trust. Clause 77 risks seriously watering down rights regarding how our data is collected and processed.
Organisations such as Justice, the British Medical Association and the National Data Guardian share our concerns that this clause erodes transparency regarding the use of patient information. The National Data Guardian has specifically warned that weakening transparency obligations could negatively impact people’s trust in how our health and social care data is used for research, potentially impairing important data initiatives. Those concerns are also shared by the British Medical Association.
While we still face a crisis in the provision of health and social care, I strongly welcome all possibilities to unlock innovation to achieve healthcare benefits, as already discussed today. I welcome that innovation for my constituent Catherine in Harpenden, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which is often overlooked in women; for Andy and Sarah in Redbourn, who lost their daughter at a painfully young age to a brain tumour; and for the families and others across Harpenden and Berkhamsted who are awaiting diagnosis and treatment. It is also for them, and to ensure that we unlock those healthcare benefits by ensuring that more data is used, that I caution against clause 77.
The clause introduces exemptions from providing information to data subjects where that would require “disproportionate effort”. However, it is hard to see how that can improve transparency. That failure to be transparent risks that loss of public trust—a message I will repeat again and again. I urge Ministers to listen to those concerns and to remove clause 77 to ensure that we have genuine public trust and crucial data protection standards, as already discussed today.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation the hon. Lady has put on the clause. There is currently an exemption from notifying data subjects if it would constitute a disproportionate effort to do so or prove impossible—obviously, there are cases where it is impossible to notify somebody. At the moment, that exemption can be used only when data was not collected directly from the data subject. Clause 77 will create a new exemption for when data was collected directly from the data subject. It will be limited to processing only for research purposes, and only when there is a change of purpose.
We believe that that will help longitudinal studies that originally obtained data from data subjects but that would struggle to notify them about a change in purpose of the study—for instance, due to having lost contact over years or due to a deterioration in the data subject’s condition. The clause is therefore essential to our research facilities in the UK, and I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Automated decision-making
Victoria Collins
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, a review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”
This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful a review must be carried out by a competent person.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Definition of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making—
“The Secretary of State must, in conjunction with the Information Commission and within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, produce a definition of what constitutes meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making or clearly set out their reasoning as to why a definition is not required.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a definition of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making, in collaboration with the Information Commission, or clearly set out reasoning why this is not required.
Victoria Collins
Amendment 51 directly addresses the ambiguity around meaningful human involvement in automated decision making. Clause 80 raises significant concerns around the future of automated decision making. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of data to drive innovation, we must remember that, behind those automated decisions, are people’s lives. Amendment 51 directly addresses that ambiguity and seeks to ensure that any human review is
“performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”
That would help to clarify the crucial definition of “meaningful”.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady because automated decision making and the precise definition of “meaningful human involvement” were a key issue in previous versions of the Bill, and she will know that we have changed this version from the previous one.
Our reforms make it clear that decisions
“based solely on automated processing”
are ones that lack meaningful human involvement. The terminology we have introduced in this version of the Bill goes beyond the current UK GDPR and Data Protection Act wording to prevent cursory human involvement being used to, effectively, rubber-stamp decisions that have been made by automated decision processes.
The point at which human involvement becomes meaningful is of course context-specific, which is why we have not sought to be prescriptive in the Bill. The Information Commissioner’s Office already sets out in its guidance its interpretation that meaningful human involvement must be active. Someone—a human being—must review the decision and have the discretion to alter it before it is applied. The Government’s introduction of the term “meaningful” to primary legislation does not change that definition, and we are supportive of the ICO’s guidance in this space.
As such, the Government agree on the importance of the ICO continuing to provide its views on the interpretation of terms used in the legislation. Our reforms do not remove the ICO’s ability to do that or to advise Parliament or the Government if it considers that the law needs clarification. Broadly speaking, I agree with the hon. lady, which is why I do not think her amendment is necessary.
Victoria Collins
I thank the Minister for those points. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but it is important to highlight that that person needs to have the necessary competence, training and authority around those decisions, so that that meaningful human involvement is very clear.
The Chair
Before seeking permission to withdraw the amendment, do you want to speak to new clause 23?
Victoria Collins
New clause 23 mandates that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, must produce a clear definition of meaningful human involvement within six months or justify why a definition is not required. Again, that is to ensure that the term “meaningful human involvement” is not just a hollow gesture. I welcome the Minister ’s remarks clarifying the issue, but it is crucial, if we are to get automated decision making right, that these things are defined and clear for everyone involved.
Chris Bryant
I will briefly add that the Information Commissioner already provides guidance in this sphere. We do not want to prevent the Information Commissioner from doing that in the future. The hon. Member is absolutely right: it has to be meaningful human involvement, and we think we have the balance right in the Bill.
Victoria Collins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 6.
New clause 1—Requirements of public sector organisations on use of algorithmic or automated decision-making systems—
“(1) No later than the commencement of use of a relevant algorithmic or automated decision-making system, a public authority must—
(a) give notice on a public register that the decision rendered will be undertaken in whole, or in part, by an algorithmic or automated decision-making system,
(b) make arrangements for the provision of a meaningful and personalised explanation to affected individuals of how and why a decision affecting them was made, including meaningful information about the decision-making processes, and an assessment of the potential consequences of such processing for the data subject, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State,
(c) develop processes to—
(i) monitor the outcomes of the algorithmic or automated decision-making system to safeguard against unintentional outcomes and to verify compliance with this Act and other relevant legislation, and
(ii) validate that the data collected for, and used by, the system is relevant, accurate, up-to-date, and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018, and
(d) make arrangements to conduct regular audits and evaluations of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems, including the potential risks of those systems and steps to mitigate such risks, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
(2) ‘Algorithmic decision system’ or ‘automated decision system’ mean any technology that either assists or replaces the judgement of human decision-makers.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the public sector to provide increased transparency to service users in informing when automated decision making had been used. It would also require them to develop processes to monitor the outcomes from utilising automated decision-making.
New clause 4—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.
(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—
(a) the name or brief description of the tool,
(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used,
(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool, and
(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.
(3) The information set out in subsection (2) must be submitted to the register prior to the deployment of any automated or semi-automatic decision-making tool by a public authority.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”
This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.
New clause 7—Information regarding high-risk AI decisions—
“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to request the following information from a data controller—
(a) an explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision,
(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome, and
(c) information about process for appeal, or request human review of, that decision.
(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of “high-impact” automated decisions.
New clause 24—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.
(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—
(a) the name or brief description of the tool;
(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used;
(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool; and
(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.
(3) A public authority must not deploy an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool unless the information specified in subsection (2) has been submitted to the register.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”
This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.
New clause 26—Provision of explanations for high-risk AI decisions—
“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to obtain from a data controller, on request—
(a) a concise, explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision;
(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome; and
(c) meaningful information about how to appeal, or request human review of, that decision.
(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes (but is not limited to) decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of high-impact automated decisions.
Chris Bryant
As we have several provisions here, it might be worth me making some comments. Clause 80 strikes the right balance between helping organisations to make the most of emerging technologies that drive up economic growth and productivity, while maintaining public confidence. Organisations will be able to make decisions that have significant effects for individuals based solely on automated processes in wider circumstances than presently, but they must implement stringent safeguards.
Those safeguards include individuals’ right to challenge and obtain human intervention if they are not satisfied with the decision. Where law enforcement agencies process personal data for a law enforcement purpose, they will be able to apply an exemption to the safeguards in very limited circumstances, such as to safeguard national security. Where that happens, a human must reconsider that decision as soon as reasonably practicable after it is taken, and that review must be meaningful. For the intelligence services, where entirely automated decision making is used, we are making clarifications to provide greater confidence to controllers and the public.
Schedule 6 contains minor and consequential amendments to UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Those amendments repeal and replace references to the current rules on automated decision making with the reformed rules in clause 80 of the Bill to provide legal clarity.
On new clauses 1, 4 and 24, the Government’s algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, enables public authorities to publish information on how and why they are using algorithmic tools. That includes a description of the human role in the wider operational process of which the tool is part. More than 50 ATRS records are now published in the repository, with more to follow shortly. Where these amendments seek to ensure that such tools are evaluated, the blueprint for modern digital government, which was laid in Parliament in January, makes it clear that part of its role will be to offer specialist assurance support, including a service to rigorously test models and products before release. I hope this provides reassurance to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.
I will address new clauses 7 and 26 together, as they intend to achieve the same effect. I would again like to reassure hon. Members—I am trying to offer a lot of reassurance to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for North Norfolk—that the data protection framework has stringent safeguards in place for solely automated decision making. The UK GDPR transparency obligations already require organisations to notify individuals about the existence of solely automated decision making and to provide meaningful information about the logic involved.
Under our reforms, after a decision has been made, organisations must also provide data subjects with information about that decision. These information requirements enable individuals to exercise the safeguards I mentioned earlier, and are in addition to the wider transparency requirements of the framework. The safeguards in the reformed article 22 are unnecessary for partly automated decision making, since these decisions already include meaningful human involvement by definition.
When it comes to high-risk decisions, there are already additional requirements for processing that can result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, including automated decision making. Controllers must carry out an impact assessment for such processing activities and consult the Information Commissioner’s Office where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures. That process ensures that potential risks are identified and addressed. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and for North Norfolk feel that they do not need to press their new clauses to a vote.
Dr Spencer
This is a really interesting set of clauses. The debate that we are having, and that they had in the other place, on automated decision making is particularly interesting.
Of course, automated decision making is here. It is everywhere in every part of our lives. I was just looking at the Spotify app on my phone, and my daylist suggested that I start off by listening to Front Line Assembly, which is an industrial metal band. It is probably because, going into the data Bill Committee on a Tuesday morning, I need something to get me started.
Dr Spencer
Ah, the temptation.
The point about automated decision making is that decisions can be made about people without their involvement, which can have substantial consequences, particularly when decisions are made in the public sector. Of course, automated decision making takes place all the time, day in and day out. We saw it on a huge scale during the covid pandemic when people had to sign up to universal credit, as there were checks on people’s basic characteristics and assets to assess their eligibility. Those decisions had quite a substantial impact on people, but the data points were actually quite simple and straightforward. As I understand it, no particular concern was raised about automated decision making in that context, apart from a few examples where people’s circumstances were remarkably unique.
The purpose of the Bill is to scale up, particularly when it comes to AI and more sophisticated decision making. We think the new clauses seek to place onerous and unnecessary obligations on Government bodies and public authorities. New clause 1, among other things, would require public bodies to give notice on a public register for each and every function they perform where automated decision making is used. New clause 4 would oblige the Secretary of State to put in place and maintain a public register of all semi-automated or fully automated decision-making tools used by public authorities in relation to individuals, with public bodies being precluded from using such tools in advance of their registration.
New clause 7 would provide service users with a range of powers to request information from data controllers in relation to the workings of wholly or partly automated decisions, and to purportedly high-risk decisions. I am amazed by the provisions suggested in new clauses 7 and 26 by the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and for North Norfolk. They seem to give quite extensive discretionary powers to the Secretary of State to define high-risk decisions and regulate them accordingly. I was surprised to see the extent of the powers handed over to the Secretary of State by these new clauses.
The new clauses are especially burdensome and unnecessary, given the widespread use of automated decision making for initial assessments in the Department for Work and Pensions, as I alluded to earlier. Automated decision making is a subject of significant debate, and clause 80 includes more safeguarding measures in proposed new article 22C of the UK GDPR. Those safeguards include requirements on data controllers to provide information to data subjects about significant decisions being taken through solely automated processing, the right to contest those decisions and the right to seek human intervention at the request of the data subject.
Our view is that clause 80, as drafted, provides a proportionate approach to the protection of individual rights, and that these tools will help with potential speed and, importantly, efficiency gains, which I mentioned earlier with regard to the use of automated decision making for universal credit in the response to covid. The basic functions of Government and public authorities rely on widespread automated decision making.
Victoria Collins
I like to think that the Liberal Democrats are aligned on automated decision making and AI being an exciting opportunity for this country, but it is a fundamental shift. It is our job as a constructive Opposition to put forward proposals for consideration, so that there is proper scrutiny and ideas to ensure we take the public with us. All our proposals are made in that light.
Behind these decisions are real people’s lives. I have a family in Wheathampstead who are desperate for a social home to fit their family life. I have someone from Tring—I will call him John—who says he has been systematically failed since high school. His universal credit claim was closed because he did not upload the correct documents, and he feels that a lack of human understanding of why he was unable to do so was a barrier to getting the help he needed. Another case involves HMRC, with a constituent being taxed on pension income he is not actually receiving—it was only after hours of support from my team and the Department that we were able to turn his case around.
The point is that it will be very difficult for people to fix errors that result from automated decision making if there is not enough transparency. We have to get that balance right. The Secretary of State’s power to define crucial terms such as “meaningful human involvement” and “similarly significant effect” creates uncertainty and the potential for watering down protections.
Clause 80 seeks to update the safeguards around automated decision making, but organisations such as Justice and the Open Rights Group have real worries that it weakens those vital safeguards by broadening the scope for purely automated decisions. Furthermore, the considerable powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend or set aside the safeguards through secondary legislation create a concerning lack of parliamentary oversight.
It is with these reservations in mind, and as a constructive Opposition, that we tabled these new clauses. New clause 1 would place a clear requirement on public sector organisations regarding the use of algorithmic automated decision making. It would demand public notice of their use and the provision of meaningful and personalised explanations to affected individuals about how and why a decision was made. I have already raised some cases that the provision would impact, and I am sure we all have similar cases in our inboxes. New clause 1 directly tackles the concerns about transparency and the right to an explanation—a principle that the Liberal Democrats firmly believe in.
New clause 4 proposes the creation of a publicly accessible register of AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector. New clause 7 seeks to empower individuals by granting them the right to request comprehensive information on decisions based wholly or partly on automated processes that have a legal or similarly significant effect on them. This aligns with the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to ensuring accountability and redress.
New clause 24 proposes the establishment of a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make or materially influence decisions. These measures would help to promote transparency and enable public scrutiny, which is something that this House and its Members are here to do, either through legislation or for our constituents on a daily basis. It is important that we ask questions about these increasingly influential technologies.
Finally, new clause 26 would reinforce the right to an explanation by requiring data controllers to provide, on request, clear explanations of high-risk AI decisions. We need to ensure that meaningful human involvement remains central.
The new clauses are not intended to stifle innovation, but to ensure that the evolution of data use is guided by principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. We must ensure that data truly is the new gold for everyone, and that individuals’ rights and protections are not devalued in the process. Indeed, innovation is often better promoted by guidelines. The new clauses represent our commitment to ensuring that clause 80 truly modernises our data laws without sacrificing the fundamental safeguards that protect everyone, including the people behind those decisions. I thank the Minister for his consideration.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure that I have a great deal to add. I feel caught between the rocks of “You are going too far” and “You are not going far enough,” which suggests to me that what we are advocating is probably proportionate and sensible, so I resist the new clauses and support clause 80.
I simply add that I do not have Spotify on my phone because I choose not to stream—I prefer to pay for my music—but I note that my ministerial podcast is available on Spotify.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 81
Data protection by design: children’s higher protection matters
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 21—Age of consent for social media data processing—
“(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services)
After paragraph 1 insert —
‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations.
(1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience.
(1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to—
(a) Educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes.
(b) Health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”.
This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thinks I was trying to calumniate him earlier by suggesting that he does not pay for his music, but I was not making that suggestion at all.
Clause 81 amends article 25 of the UK GDPR to strengthen the obligations for providers of information society services likely to be accessed by children, such as social media platforms and streaming services, by requiring them to actively consider the protection of children’s data when designing their services, and to ensure that appropriate organisational and technical measures are in place to safeguard young users.
The clause sets out the higher protection matters that ISS providers must consider when designing their services, including how best to protect and support children when processing their personal data. The duty also requires data controllers to consider the fact that children merit specific protection because they may be less aware of the risks and their rights, and the fact that children’s needs vary with age and development. When considering how to comply with the new duty, ISS providers will be greatly aided by the age-appropriate design code issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which sets out comprehensive guidance for ISS providers on using personal data in a way that complies with data protection principles and respects the best interests of children.
New clause 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, would in effect increase the age of consent for social media from 13 to 16. I am happy to listen to her comments, but much of this was debated in Friday morning’s private Member’s Bill debate—I think that is partly what led her to table the new clause—and in the Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago. I am happy to respond to her comments, but we will be resisting her new clause.
Dr Spencer
At the heart of new clause 21 is the aim to restrict access to certain social media platforms by children under the age of 16. I am very sympathetic to the motivations of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.
Victoria Collins
I just want to clarify that the new clause is about the age of data consent, not access to social media. I will cover that in my speech, but I want to ensure that is clear.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. Nevertheless, I think there is an overlap with the debate that took place in the Chamber last Friday on the ballot Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which has been dubbed the safer phones Bill. We all took part in that debate.
During Friday’s debate, I highlighted the mounting research and evidence on the harm to adolescents’ mental health from social media platforms. Policy in this area needs to be developed based on the best data and evidence. In that regard, we also need to learn from the roll-out of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the implementation of Ofcom’s guidance on putting in place age assurance in relation to particular types of content and data.
I welcome reports that the Government intend to commission the chief medical officer to review the harms associated with this area. It is disappointing that the Minister did not give a firm commitment on that from the Dispatch Box last Friday. Will he take the opportunity to do so today?
Victoria Collins
I start with the young people at the heart of this. We have indeed debated this time and again, and it is important that we keep that going. I have been on a Safe Screens tour, speaking to young people across Harpenden and Berkhamsted—from Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted to St George’s school in Harpenden, and beyond. Girl guides have spoken to me of their concerns about online bullying and harmful content. When I visited local schools on my Safe Screens tour, young men told me that social media has shown them extreme content that they do not want to see, and despite their efforts to block or ban it, the algorithm brings it back. Young women have told me of their worries about the growing misogyny in online content. Together, young women and men alike have talked about the impact on their body image, bullying and the amount of time sucked up by social media—time they want to spend doing other things.
There is mounting evidence of the negative effects of our children’s exposure to an unsafe online environment. Every day, we hear the concerns of parents, the anxieties of teachers and, crucially, the voices of young people themselves, all crying out for action to ensure their safety online and calling for stronger regulation of their online experience. I realise that the Online Safety Act is moving forward, but it will not go far enough.
This is a matter of profound importance for the wellbeing of our nation’s children and young people. The digital world is now the fabric of our lives and the lives of young people—it is where they learn, connect and seek entertainment—and yet, as the digital landscape expands, so do the risks they face. As 5Rights highlights,
“the enormous potential of technology can only be realised when it is designed with children in mind”.
Parliament now has an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to help shape that technology. It is disappointing that the safer phones Bill was watered down, so we have tabled new clause 21 as a crucial step to strengthen protections for young people in the digital age. It seeks to bring UK data law in line with many of our European neighbours, by raising the minimum age at which internet companies can collect, process and store a user’s data without explicit parental consent to 16.
New clause 21 is not about banning children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. It is important that the responsibility lies with the social media companies to ensure that online spaces are age-appropriate, and to manage content and features. This new clause is a targeted and proportionate measure to require online services to change fundamentally how they handle children’s data. This crucial change will necessitate restricting the pervasive and often harmful influence of algorithms to make the platforms inherently less addictive and ultimately foster a more child-friendly digital environment.
It is imperative that digital technology is designed with the best interests of our children and young people at heart, ensuring that their rights and privacy are upheld—not as an afterthought, but with safety by design and by default. Furthermore, new clause 21 underscores the fundamental principle that the responsibility for managing content and features must remain firmly with the social media companies. We call for the establishment of robust digital standards to ensure that platforms prioritise child safety and privacy as their default setting, rather than as an optional extra.
Our duty to protect children online, however, cannot end with new clause 21. We call on the Government to take further action, such as explicitly recognising and treating children’s use of social media as a critical public health issue, thoroughly examining international best practice, identifying innovative solutions to the challenges we face, and developing evidence-based policies that will demonstrably improve online safety for children. I welcome the Government’s proposal last week to introduce a cross-Government safer screens taskforce to look at research into the multifaceted impact of social media on children’s wellbeing.
This is not an overnight phenomenon. Last year marked 20 years since Facebook was created and 18 years since the smartphone was launched. We now face mounting calls from young people, parents and teachers. Now is the time for greater action on the gaps left by the Online Safety Act. I urge the Government to recognise the urgent need for decisive action and to support new clause 21. This is a pivotal opportunity to strengthen protections for young people online and to cultivate a digital world where they can thrive, not merely navigate potential harms. Let us work together across party lines to ensure a safer and brighter digital future for all our children.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to do with new clause 21. I invite the Minister to address, as I am sure he will, her very specific point that it is not about restricting access to social media for people aged between 13 and 16, but about further restricting how social media is targeted at those age groups. After visiting schools in my constituency, I am minded to support her argument. At Ryde academy, I heard the reaction of young people to their school restricting access to their phones, which a school can only do during the school day.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the quite reasonable proposition on how to restrict social media companies from targeting children aged 13 to 16. Restricting the way they collect their data sounds like a small, but meaningful, step that the Government could take.
Chris Bryant
I thought the debate might stray a little from the precise point my hon. Friend just made to into broader issues about young people’s use of smartphones and social media in general, and inevitably it has. This is a very live issue, of which the Government are painfully aware, as I tried to say in the debate last Friday. We are trying to work out the best way forward to a place where the rules that were implemented in the Online Safety Act, some of which only come into force in the spring—some have yet to get parliamentary approval; that will probably come in April—bed in properly and are adhered to before we take further action. That is simply because it is difficult to know otherwise whether the Online Safety Act has gone far enough. I wish that the Online Safety Act had been not the Online Safety Act 2023, but the Online Safety Act 2021 or 2019. Had it been, we might now be in a position to assess its effects.
In the debate on Friday I referred to the feasibility study commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology from the University of Cambridge, which is working with other researchers. Work on that will finish in May, so I hope to have further information then. There is already a lot of guidance out there for parents, teachers and schools, but if we need to provide more informed guidance in the future, we will certainly look into that.
The precise targeting of young people by algorithms and so on is, at least theoretically, already dealt with by the Online Safety Act. That is why I do not think that new clause 21 is an appropriate measure to take forward at this time. Whether the age limit should be 13 or 16 was decided by the previous Government and agreed by Parliament after quite extensive consultation during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018. All these matters have to be kept under review, and we are doing so in an urgent way, not least because a lot of Members are bringing up concerns raised by their constituents, families and so on.
I sometimes worry that the concentration solely on schools is to the detriment of the wider issues we are facing, not least because, as teachers readily admit, they only ever see children for about 20% of their time, and we need to set this in a wider context. I understand the motivation behind the new clause, but I will still resist it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 82 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Joint processing by intelligence services and competent authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 90 stand part.
New clause 8—Intelligence services and law enforcement data-sharing: enhanced oversight—
“(1) Where intelligence services or law enforcement bodies share personal data under this Act, the Commissioner must review the nature, purposes, and scope of the data-sharing annually and produce a report assessing—
(a) the necessity and proportionality of the data-sharing,
(b) any impact on individuals’ rights, and
(c) any recommendations for improved safeguards or remedial measures.
(2) The Commissioner must lay the report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament, subject to any redactions strictly necessary on national security grounds.
(3) This section does not authorise or require the Commissioner to disclose information that could jeopardise national security, but the Commissioner must endeavour to provide the maximum transparency compatible with security requirements.
(4) The Secretary of State must respond to each report within 90 days of their laying before Parliament, addressing any recommendations made by the Commissioner.”
This new clause would require the Information Commission to review, annually, data-sharing by intelligence and law enforcement services, and to publish a report of its findings.
Chris Bryant
I rise mainly to speak to new clause 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. It would require the Information Commissioner to review and publish an annual report on data sharing by law enforcement and the intelligence services. Any processing of personal data by law enforcement and the intelligence services must, by definition, be lawful, which inherently includes the requirement that the processing be necessary and proportionate.
The Information Commissioner is obliged to provide an annual report to Parliament under the Data Protection Act 2018, and may also produce additional reports as they see fit. The commissioner has powers of investigation, monitoring and enforcement that they may exercise as appropriate to oversee law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. Given the current system of oversight, and the fact that the commissioner is already required to provide reports annually, I hope the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted will not press her new clause to a vote.
Victoria Collins
I am sure members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that I have a very short speech. Clause 89 permits the processing of personal data jointly between law enforcement and intelligence services for the crucial purpose of safeguarding national security. While the Liberal Democrats recognise the necessity of such collaboration in specific circumstances, the inherently sensitive nature of the data demands the highest level of protection and scrutiny. New clause 8 is designed to ensure that ministerial changes to the data safeguards on this joint processing cannot be enacted without proper scrutiny by Parliament. We would also welcome hearing from the Government on Report proposals to uphold and ensure that parliamentary scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
Codes of practice for the processing of personal data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the Information Commission—
“(1) Prior to issuing any guidance or statement of strategic priorities to the Information Commission, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of the House of Commons, and
(b) the Senedd, Scottish Parliament, or Northern Ireland Assembly where guidance relates to devolved powers.
(2) The Secretary of State may not reject or change a Code of Practice prepared by the Information Commission without a resolution to do so from each House of Parliament.”
This new clause seeks to strengthen the regulator’s independence by limiting ministerial powers to direct or override the Information Commission without oversight.
Clause 93 stand part.
Chris Bryant
I rise to speak primarily to new clause 27. The Government are committed to the independence of the regulator, which will continue to be accountable to Parliament. The Bill does not introduce a statement of strategic priorities, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted seems to suggest in her new clause, nor does the Secretary of State issue discretionary guidance to the regulator. Neither the Bill nor existing legislation provides for the Secretary of State to amend or reject a code of practice. I therefore do not see that this new clause is necessary.
Dr Spencer
I have a specific point on the text of new clause 27. We do not support this curtailment of powers, particularly in this context. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consult as a matter of course in carrying out his duties, whatever they are, and a specific requirement to consult the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, notwithstanding its prowess and stature, would be inoperable.
Victoria Collins
For us, the amendment is again in the spirit of ensuring proper scrutiny. However, I welcome the Minister’s comments and am happy not to press it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 93 and 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Regulations under this Part: Parliamentary procedure and consultation
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 95, page 120, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment removes a subsection which was inserted at Report stage in the Lords.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 135 to 139 stand part.
New clause 17—Statement on application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by webcrawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works.”
New clause 18—Report on regulation of web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models on use of creative content—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI.”
New clause 19—Report on reducing barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data.”
New clause 20—Publication of a technological standard—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.”
Chris Bryant
Clause 95(1) relates to artificial intelligence and copyright and the related reporting requirement on the Information Commissioner. I will set out our fuller reasoning on copyright shortly, but for now, I merely state that we believe that now is not the right time to place an additional reporting obligation on the Information Commissioner in the Bill. Government amendment 22 would therefore remove subsection (1), which was added to the Bill on Report in the Lords.
Subsection (2) requires the Information Commissioner to publish key performance indicators. The Government take the performance and accountability of UK regulators seriously. Regulators undertake important functions across our economy and society, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is no exception, so it is important that Parliament and other stakeholders have the right means to hold them to account. Publishing such metrics is best practice and a transparent way of providing measurable analysis of the ICO’s performance year on year. This forms part of a package of additional reporting requirements, alongside those in clause 91 and the report on regulatory action in clause 102, which we will discuss later. Together, they will increase understanding and transparency about priorities, performance and enforcement activities.
Clauses 135 to 139 are in this group, although we will vote on them later. They set out further requirements regarding copyright and AI, and I urge that they do not stand part of the Bill. These clauses require regulations to be made to ensure compliance with copyright law by web crawlers and general AI models, and transparency about the use of web crawlers and the works they scrape. There is also an enforcement requirement for the Information Commissioner, and provision on a review of technical solutions.
The Committee well knows, because I have mentioned it several times, that I agree with many of the points raised in debate on the clauses and the importance of transparency for rights holders in the creative industries. It was one of the key principles in the consultation we published on copyright and AI that closed on 25 February. We want genuine transparency about what is used in training AI, alongside rights holders’ control of their work and appropriate access to training material for AI. However, although I accept the intention behind the amendments—that is, clauses 135 to 139, which were added in the Lords—we do not believe that the Bill, which is a data measure, is the right vehicle for action.
We received more than 11,000 detailed and heartfelt responses to our public consultation on AI and copyright. Many set out specific views on transparency, technical standards and a range of the questions that we asked in the consultation. We are taking care to read each response. Although we believe that action needs to be taken on transparency and web crawlers, as well as other issues relating to AI and copyright, it is only right that we carefully consider all the viewpoints and evidence before acting. We have heard loud and clear the message that stakeholders do not want us to rush to legislate on this topic, and we intend to heed this message. Yesterday the Secretary of State met representatives of the creative industries and repeated that point.
The engagement will not end with this consultation. I have already stated our intention to create working groups to move the conversation forward, including on technical solutions. Industry often comes up with the best ideas, so I want to harness that, whether it is greater transparency about AI training or standards on web crawlers, metadata and watermarking. Whatever the solution, we want to be confident in its efficacy and, critically, in its simplicity and accessibility. We have said repeatedly that we will not move forward in this sphere unless we are confident we can give rights holders greater control over the use of their works. Once we have analysed the responses to the consultation, we will publish proposals. Clauses 135 to 139, which were added to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords, should not stand part of the Bill.
Opposition new clauses 17 to 20 also relate to AI and copyright. I am grateful for the way in which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, has advanced these suggestions. These new clauses would require the Secretary of State to issue a statement on the application of UK copyright law to the activities of web crawlers and artificial intelligence models. One of the new clauses sets out the possibility of this being a copyright notice, issued by the Intellectual Property Office. They also require the Secretary of State to produce two reports, one of which should include a plan for transparency regarding the use of copyright materials with AI; the other should be on access to data and how to reduce market entry barriers for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises. Finally, they would require the Secretary of State to publish a technical standard for a machine-readable digital watermark, which would allow rights holders to label their content for the purposes of licensing.
As the House is aware, these amendments relate to matters that are at the heart of the government’s approach to AI and copyright. Indeed, the recently closed consultation sought views precisely on these issues. I commend my Conservative colleagues on the spirit of these amendments, but ask that they not be pressed at this time. I hope we can have further discussions on how we move forward on Report. While the amendments may indeed offer useful steps for the Government to take in solving issues of AI and copyright, proper analysis and policy development is likely to take longer than the proposed timeframes included in the clauses, given the 11,000 responses we received to the consultation. In addition, we would not wish to pre-empt the consultation, which some of these proposed clauses may do.
That said, I hope that I can discuss the issues raised by the amendments further with Members from both Opposition parties, to discuss whether we might be able to agree on similar proposals as we move forward. As I say, we take these issues seriously. As I am the Minister for Creative Industries and a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I take a special interest in this and agree with the spirit of what these amendments seek to achieve, but I ask that new clauses 17 to 20 not be pressed at this stage.
Dr Spencer
Equally I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has conducted this debate. It is an important one, which has captured the focus of a great many people, not only those in the creative and AI sectors whose livelihoods absolutely depend on us getting this right, but all of us who love and benefit from the products of the UK creative industries.
I will discuss clauses 135 to 139, which the Government are seeking to remove, before I speak to the new clauses that stand in my name and those of other Opposition Members. While there are problems with clauses 135 to 139, they do reflect the creative industries’ well founded and much publicised concerns about the manner in which AI developers conduct data mining activities to train their models and for generative activities. I should declare an interest; I recently attended the Brit awards with my wife with support from the British Phonographic Industry, so I received hospitality in the last couple of weeks.
Dr Spencer
The Minister can interpret that how he wishes. We must ensure that our creative industry is supported to thrive while harnessing the technological and economic benefits of growing our domestic AI capability. The amendments in this area from the other place touch broadly on a number of important principles, which we support. They include the application of copyright law to data mining and AI-generative activity, which is covered in clause 135; the need for high transparency in how AI models are trained and the materials used for that purpose; and the importance of identifying sound technical solutions so that copyrighted content can be identified by web crawlers and AI models excluded from training and generative activity.
However, these matters and their solutions are complex from technological, legal and societal perspectives. We totally recognise the challenges of legislating in this area. Our international counterparts face the same challenges in trying to strike an effective balance between supporting our AI industries and supporting our creative sector. It is not a zero-sum game. There is clear scope for collaboration and mutual benefit if we get this approach right. As the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), stated in the Chamber, creative industries are telling us that the Government’s solution—set out in their consultation as their preferred option—is “not fit for purpose”. We need to engage carefully with the feedback received from industry stakeholders to come up with the right solutions in this area.
As the Minister mentioned, new clauses 17 to 20 recognise that putting together a specific plan in great detail on how to solve this problem needs to be done by chewing through the information from the ongoing consultation and through extensive engagement with the people who are actually going to do this stuff and the people who will be affected by it. In effect, the proposals are end-point clauses, about the world we want to see in the future, where our AI and creative sector can work together and we get all the benefits from both. It is where we want to get to. It is a bit less about putting together the journey plan of how we get there, with the exception of the fact that the Government need to crack on and sort this out—[Interruption.] Well, he’s the Minister. It comes with the job.
New clause 17 is intended to require the Government to confirm the application of existing copyright law to creative content mined by AI web crawlers and models in the same way that it would apply to other offline content. The Opposition feel that there is no ambiguity about the application of copyright law in this context. However, the Government have consistently suggested, in their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence and elsewhere, that the legal position is unclear. In effect, that has created ambiguity and given rise to significant concern and objection from the creative sector. It deters smaller AI enterprises and start-ups from developing their products.
Running counter to that is the near existence of a possible future opt-out. I have heard evidence that AI companies are now thinking, “Let’s hang on before we buy licensed content, because we might get it for free anyway if this applies going forward.” If the aim was to give confidence to the AI sector, as was dealt with by the consultation, that has not happened either.
Clarity is needed for both the creative and AI industries, but not in the form of a wholesale exemption from copyright law for development and generative activity undertaken by AI models. The Government should make a clarificatory statement about the existing application of copyright law in this area. That certainty is the foundation block of sound policy aimed at supporting the creative industries to harness the economic value of their work, so I commend new clause 17 to the Committee.
New clause 18 requires the Government within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to put forward proportionate and effective measures to ensure transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, development and generative activities of AI models, with emphasis on the proportionate and effective nature of the measures. At a high level, ensuring transparency in this area will help to ensure that information is available for rights holders to discern where and how their work has been used, and seek payment for the use of their work where appropriate.
New clause 18 seeks to address the widespread concerns of creative rights holders that they do not know when their material is being used, which acts as a block to any form of enforcement of their rights or licensing going forward. However, the approach to transparency must be proportionate. In particular, transparency obligations should not be so onerous that they stifle the market for AI start-ups and smaller enterprises in their infancy, when these entities should form the lifeblood of our future technological economy. One could envisage a situation where, if we get the legislation on this wrong, the recording and storing of information that has created a model, in its extreme triviality, could in effect become a bigger dataset than the set used in the first place— hence the focus on the importance of proportionate and effective measures.
The timing of the action to be taken by the Secretary of State under the new clause—within three months of Royal Assent—is intended to give the Secretary of State a proper opportunity to consider the feedback of the creative and AI industries and other stakeholders received under the recently concluded consultation on copyright and AI. I am ambitious for the Minister and the Government. I know he slightly deprecated his ability to get on and try to put something together, but I have faith in him to drive this forward. The feedback should help to formulate a plan that is both effective and workable, so I commend new clause 18 to the Committee.
New clause 19 requires the Secretary of State within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises, specifically in relation to access to data to train their models. The Government’s now concluded consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence specifies that one of its key aims is to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK.
The AI opportunities action plan commissioned by the Government made a series of recommendations relating to the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation by UK start-ups and researchers in order to attract international talent and capital. Although the imbalance in access to resources between established companies and start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises is in the nature of markets, failing to address that in this context risks reinforcing a situation where AI development activity remains the preserve of a relatively small number of established operators. I am thinking particularly of those that have been able to set up now, using datasets that have not had to comply with whatever provisions will eventually be put in place to regulate this area.
The Prime Minister indicated in his response to the action plan that DSIT would look at how to take this policy area forward. New clause 19 calls on the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and come up with a proper plan to turbocharge not only growth in our AI sector, but diversity and competition among operators of all sizes, by coming up with a plan to reduce the barriers to market entry that the accessibility of data presents.
Given the increasing adoption and use of AI by digital Government and the mechanisms of the state, it is critical for our national security and our national resilience to have a functioning domestic AI market that we can draw on for our use. The timescale for the Secretary of State to publish his report provides an opportunity for industry and stakeholder feedback to be taken into account when developing effective plans. For those reasons, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.
Finally, new clause 20 requires the publication of a technological standard. I hope that the previous three new clauses are relatively uncontroversial, and I particularly hope that this new clause is the most uncontroversial of all. It is based on an amendment that was moved by my noble Friend Viscount Camrose in the other place, but which was withdrawn on receipt of reassurances from the Minister. The new clause requires the Government to publish a technological standard for machine-readable watermarks for the purpose of identifying the licensed content when it is encountered by web crawlers and AI models.
The development of such a standard would greatly enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their work, and to support enforcement of creative rights by creating a record of where and how content has been used. The development of a technological standard will be incredibly useful, even if the Government decide to take forward the flawed opt-out proposals and even if they are not ultimately adopted. This technological standard would be used in whatever situation we find ourselves in over the next few years in this industry.
This proposal would provide web crawlers and AI models with clear signposting that the content is not available for training or generative activity. Where that is properly deployed and observed by AI models, it will reduce the need for rights holders to take action to seek compensation for infringement of their copyright. The new clause does not ask the Government to commit to a specific solution, and nor should it, but it requires them to commit to identifying such a solution within a reasonable period. Let the industry sort it out. One of the challenges that has been going through my mind when exploring this area is why, from a point of principle, the market has not fixed this in the first place, and why we are where we are now in trying to resolve these issues. The new clause will promote transparency and certainty for the creative and AI industries, and I commend it to the Committee.
Victoria Collins
I have found these discussions among Members across the House about AI and copyright to be a delightful exchange about the creative industries that we love. I understand the Minister’s comments about there being different spaces for that debate and that this may not be the place for that, but I would like to speak to the new clauses that were proposed in the other House.
To highlight one of the creative industries that I love, this weekend I went to The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, one of the best cinemas in the world—if any Members want to come, they are all very welcome. Sitting there, watching “A Complete Unknown”— about Bob Dylan and his songs—in a local movie theatre reminded me just how important it is to ensure that the creative industries can maintain their creativity, because it speaks to our soul and our society. They are beyond machine learning. They are humans who actually understand us and help to tell our stories in different ways.
That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed new clauses 135 to 139 that were tabled in the other place. We also welcome the consultation from the Government and are pleased to hear that there have been over 11,000 responses. Members will find responses from us in there, because we wanted to make sure that the Liberal Democrats made representations at every stage. It is disappointing that the change that the Government have set out means there is an “opt in by default” provision, and the message has come across from the creative industries that they are calling for an open consultation, so we can make sure that their views are heard. We support their voices being heard and, indeed, striking that balance where the creative industries can work with innovation, as they have been. This is about getting that right. We are proud of those industries in the UK. We must work together and truly listen to those thousands of voices up and down this country. That is what we stand for, and we will support the Government moving forward in that way.
Chris Bryant
First of all, I commend both hon. Members on their contributions. Let us face it; this is very difficult. It is a classic case of difficulty for the Government because, as the previous Government found, two sectors are really important to UK growth. The creative industries are one of the fastest-growing sectors in the UK and are representative of our future growth. Somebody put it to me the other day that there was a time when our economy relied on selling industrial products, then it was services, and, in the new era, perhaps one of the things that we are exceptionally good at is selling experiences, and a large part of that is through intellectual property from the creative industries.
Dr Spencer
I am tempted, because we both clearly share a love for the Sugababes, to just draw a reference to that. Of course, the creative industries also have quite a lot of experience of using other creative materials licensed from other producers. For the Sugababes song “Freak Like Me”, I am fairly sure that the sample is directly taken from Gary Numan’s “Are ‘Friends’ Electric?”, and presumably they came to some sort of arrangement in organising that. This sharing of data is not unusual for the creative sector.
Chris Bryant
I have often wondered whether Kylie’s song “Padam Padam” is a reference to Edith Piaf’s “Padam padam…” because they are also quite similar. This is, of course, a well traversed space for people working in the copyright sphere: trying to make sure that people are not passing off or using other people’s work without permission. The economic and moral rights of rights holders are well established in UK law. We started the process of legislating for that in 1709, under Queen Anne. Dickens had an ambition to make sure that people could not just take copies of his books to America and sell them for free without any payment to him, which is part of why we ended up with an international copyright regime. We do not want to undermine that.
Transparency is key, and it was one of the elements that we put into our consultation. We need to be careful about precisely how that transparency works out. The hon. Gentleman referred to proposed new clause 18, which he wants us to do something on within three months. As ambitious as he may be for me, that is a remarkably short period of time for parliamentary drafting. After all, a version of the Bill was first introduced four years ago, yet it still does not have Royal Assent. He refers to the terms “proportionate and effective” in that proposed new clause. To go back to “Hamlet”, aye, there’s the rub. What do proportionate and effective mean, and how do you balance the two? Different sectors will have difficult and competing sets of agendas and we may, in some shape or other, have to arbitrate.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one, anywhere in the world, has come to a proper settled position on this issue. In the United States of America, for instance, a lot of AI companies have been relying on fair use, under the slightly different copyright system there, but the most recent federal case found in favour of Reuters against an AI company—the court said that scraping material was not fair use. The EU has not yet fully developed its proposals and has not decided how to implement its transparency requirements. It could be argued that that is one reason why there has not been much additional licensing, which was one of the EU’s declared goals.
There is also the question of how to enforce transparency. The clause—in a provision tabled by the admirable Baroness Kidron—specifically gives that enforcement power to the Information Commissioner. I am not sure that is the right place to put that power, or that the Information Commissioner has the expertise or resources for it. Undoubtedly, if there are to be new transparency requirements, we must have some form of enforcement.
All those things suggest to me that it is not right to put this power as an addendum to this Bill. The matter should be seen in the round, after a consultation, and there should be a proper primary legislation process, which may not happen for another 12 to 18 months, or even two years. I do not know.
The Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology, and myself, are keen to get to a place where there is more licensing of copyrighted material by AI companies. I do not think anybody expects that the labour of others should be handed over to third parties without recompense or control. That, in itself, is not simple. It might be simple for the Design & Artists Copyright Society to do all the licensing for artists and photographers, but how could that be done for people who works as individuals, rather than as part of a collecting society? That is another set of issues that need to be addressed.
I know there are places in the world where one can buy an AI-generated book, and it might be perfectly readable. We might all have authors who we think have worked in that way in the past. But when I read a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I want to know that it has a human involved in it. Human creativity is a vital part of what renders that process of creativity so important. I think of humans as fundamentally social beings. One of the worst things that can be done to a human being is to put them in solitary confinement, because that denies our fundamental social being. What is so special about all the creative industries is that they enable a connection from human being to human being. I am passionate about not losing that or the value inherent in that.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 96 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 109 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden.)
Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Turner. I want to make a point about new clause 30, which I know was not selected for debate. Many will be familiar with the story of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen Roome, who lost her 14-year-old son Jools in 2022. Jools was a happy boy. He died in tragic circumstances. In her search for answers about the circumstances leading up to Jools’s death, Ellen has come up against outdated laws and social media giants taking an intransigent approach to sharing data that should naturally be hers as a bereaved parent. We are talking about things that, in the past, she would have been able to find out by looking through her child’s bedroom—things that might have been in wardrobes, stored under the bed or in scrawled notes. These days, those bits of data could be on multiple social media accounts, but parental access is denied.
That is the subject of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen’s Member of Parliament. The change to the law would be known as Jools’ law, in his memory. It would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, with certain safeguards to respect third parties, so that other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I know that this new clause has not been chosen for discussion, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to discuss the issue further.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Further to that point of order, Mr Turner. The reason new clause 30 has not been selected is not that anybody has wanted to rule it inadmissible; it is simply because we are cracking through the Bill at such a speed that, although it was anticipated we would still be sitting on Thursday, it seems likely we will finish today, and new clause 30 therefore cannot be reached today because of its late tabling.
I know that Ellen is in the room, and I am very happy to facilitate a meeting with her, which I think is still outstanding with the Department. We will make sure that happens before the Bill gets to Report stage. If the hon. Member for Cheltenham or other Members want to be present at that meeting, I will make sure that happens. This is not a slight of any kind; it is just an accident of fortune in terms of the tabling of amendments.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the Minister for their points of order.
Clause 117
The Information Commission
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 117, page 149, line 11, at end insert—
“(5A) In Schedule 13, paragraph 1(1), at end insert—
‘(j) advise the Government on measures relating to data ownership, and individuals’ rights and freedoms, in the delivery of its Data Vision and Strategy.’”
This amendment amends the functions of the Information Commission to allow it to advise the Government in the delivery of a Data Vision and Strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Data Vision and Strategy—
“Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a ‘Data Vision and Strategy’ which outlines—
(a) the Government’s data transformation priorities for the next five years; and
(b) steps the Government will take to ensure the digitisation of Government services.”
New clause 11—Departmental Board Appointments—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) Government departments;
(b) NHS England; and
(c) NHS trusts
shall appoint to their departmental board or equivalent body at least one of the following—
(i) Chief Information Officer;
(ii) Chief Technology Officer;
(iii) Chief Digital Information Officer;
(iv) Service Transformation Leader; or
(v) equivalent postholder.
(2) The person or persons appointed as under subsection (1) shall provide an annual report on the progress of the department or body towards the Government’s Data Vision and Strategy.”
This new clause would require digital leaders to be represented at executive level within Government departments and other bodies.
New clause 16—Data use in Public Service Delivery Review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, every 12 months, lay before Parliament a ‘Data use in Public Service Delivery Review’.
(2) The Data use in Public Service Delivery Review shall include, but is not limited to assessment of the steps being taken to—
(a) improve the Government’s use of data in public service delivery over the previous 12 months;
(b) expand the use of data to support increased and improved digital services in public service delivery;
(c) improve expertise and digital talent within Government departments to help expand the use of data for public service delivery; and
(d) facilitate and regulate for better use of data in the delivery of public services.”
This new clause would require an annual assessment by the Secretary of State to examine the steps being taken to facilitate and regulate the use of data in the delivery of public services using digital and online technologies.
Steff Aquarone
New clause 10 requires the Government to bring forward a data vision and strategy within six months of the passing of the Bill, and amendment 21 would add a new function to the Information Commission to allow it to support the Government in the drafting and delivery of that data vision and strategy. New clause 11 seeks to ensure that all departmental boards and NHS bodies have senior staff with data and technology expertise at the highest level. Finally, new clause 16 would require the Government to publish annual reviews of the use of data in the delivery of public services, including updates on the progression of a number of key goals.
I turn first to new clause 10. In previous speeches in the House, I have tried my best to emphasise the transformative power of data in our era. It can be seen as similar to the discovery of fire, gold or oil, such is its value and ability to totally reshape how we approach the world. I think the most accurate comparison is with Edison’s harnessing of the power of electricity. I invite you, Mr Turner, and the Committee to imagine that Government is like a 19th-century factory. Prior to electricity generation, a factory had to be organised around a single power source—usually a steam engine—with every machine that needed power connecting directly to the central driveshaft above. Components could be made but then had to be transported elsewhere to be assembled, usually by hand. By harnessing electricity, it was possible to pipe power anywhere on the factory floor. That meant the machines could be placed wherever they were needed, becoming more precise, more efficient and more specialised, and it led to mass manufacturing of the product as the central organising principle of industry.
What does this have to do with modern government? The data revolution that has been under way since the 1990s means that the structures and organisation of government can themselves be transformed in the same way that industry was in the 1890s. We can use data to shift from archaic practices and government functions, some of which occasionally feel like they might still run on steam power, and shift towards public services that make the citizen experience their central organising principle. With the true free flow of data through government, we can bring services to people, make them easier and more efficient to use and radically improve how people interact with government. However, to do any of that, the Government need to develop key principles to enable them to seize that opportunity. Creating a data vision will show what the future could be for data use across government, setting out where we want to get to, how we want services to run and what the ideal citizen experience will be. From that vision, which I hope would be ambitious and wide-ranging, the Government could design a strategy to deliver on it, outlining how they are going to seize data’s transformative power to improve the state’s workings and ultimately deliver a better experience for all our constituents when they come into contact with government or the state.
A national data strategy was, in fact, published under the last Government. It was consulted on during 2019 and published in 2020. It is clear that the world is very different from the world in 2019. The pandemic made Government rapidly re-evaluate and improve their relationship with available data to handle a national emergency and there are lessons to be learned from that. It also forced a change in many people’s habits and expectations. We are prepared to act far more digitally now, but also expect that businesses and corporations and Government will be more adept in the experiences they provide for us. Although much of what was in the last data strategy was on the right track, I am sure that, with a new world, this new Government would want to make their own mark and fully harness the data revolution.
A comprehensive data vision and strategy also empowers the Government when they need to move quickly, to adapt and react to the ever-changing technological landscape. When we need swiftly to harness new technologies or developments, we risk missing out and needlessly delaying, if we drive ourselves back to the legislation table each time. Although I am greatly enjoying the Bill Committee, if we go through a full set of legislative processes every time we want to use the latest innovation, we will move far too slowly. An overarching vision gives confidence to the Government in how to react to new developments by assessing how they can match up with the long-term strategic goals that they want to achieve.
Our slow adoption of the power of data has allowed many other countries to be leaps and bounds ahead of us, despite not having the resources, the expertise or the talent that our country has heaps of. Let us make sure that, for the next step of digital transformation, people look to us as leaders and trailblazers.
I hope that the Government will take inspiration for the data vision and strategy from the last 25 years in Estonia. As I told the House on Second Reading. Estonia has made the astonishing transformation from a poor post-Soviet state to a leader in digital government and data leadership. Its national drive to improve digital literacy and access, along with pulling their public services into the digital age, is an example that many other nations, including ours, should seek to follow. It has made 100% of public services available digitally, developed the fantastic X-Road data-sharing platform and delivered millions of euros in efficiency savings. It is a completely realistic goal to make the UK a digital leader in digital government and data efficiency, just like Estonia. That is the goal that I would write in the Government’s data vision. I hope that the Minister, if he were authoring it, would be just as ambitious.
I also think the Government could take lessons from Denmark, which has come top of the UN’s e-government rankings. It has embedded core principles of digital inclusion into its data and digital transformation journey. Those principles include being aware of the consequences of digitisation, providing usable alternatives and designing solutions for all citizens. This quote from its “Principles for Digital Inclusion” publication is particularly pertinent:
“It is a democratic problem if the digital transformation becomes a barrier to participating in the welfare society.”
The Minister and I have spoken about and shared concerns about digital exclusion. It is something that our constituencies and constituents both have in common. I hope he would be as keen as me to see that inclusion principle made a key tenet of the future of digital governance and data use.
Amendment 21 also ensures that, in drafting and delivering the strategy, the Government can rely upon the expertise of the Information Commissioner. The rights and freedoms of citizens and their data ownership must be core to a future data vision and strategy. The amendment enshrines the ability of the Information Commissioner to act as a source of advice and guidance in bringing that forward. The Government and Departments will need to be ready to implement the data vision and strategy, and the radical transformation that it will require.
I have therefore tabled new clauses 11 and 16. New clause 11 would require the NHS and Government to ensure the appointment of someone with a senior data, information or technology role to their boards. A helpful inspiration in the drafting of the new clause was the Government’s own “State of digital government review”, published only a couple of months ago. It is nothing short of excoriating in its assessment of the state of digital government, as well as the Government’s digital talent and culture. The review states that
“non-digital public sector leaders with sizable delivery responsibilities have insufficient technical expertise or training”,
and that
“Digital leadership is not a consistent priority.”
My new clause 11 would ensure that a chief digital and information officer, a chief information officer, a chief technology officer or a service transformation lead is present on the boards of all Departments. As it stands, none of those roles is present on the executive committee at any of the following Departments: Business and Trade; Housing, Communities and Local Government; Health and Social Care; Education; the Home Office; the Cabinet Office; NHS England; and the Treasury. I could keep going, but I think everyone gets the point.
That is in the Government’s own review, published by the Minister’s Department, and I am using it to draw attention to the problem. It criticises the problem that new clause 11 seeks to remedy. I invite the Minister to accept the new clause to fix something that his own Department has highlighted and that I would not have known about without its helpful review. I do not blame him one bit, of course, because his party inherited this situation from the Conservatives, who were guilty of failing for almost a decade to address the problem, but I hope that he can put it right by accepting new clause 11.
Turning back to the review by the Minister’s Department, it also states that 47% of central Government services and 45% of NHS services still lack a digital pathway. The report says:
“The UK is under digitised”,
and I wholly agree. I hope that new clause 16 could take steps to fix that. I would look forward to the Secretary of State coming to Parliament with his review each year to tell us about the great leaps that the Government are making towards improved data use in public service delivery and improving their digital talent and culture.
If the Government are serious about pushing forward digital transformation with the power of data, new clause 16 provides them with an annual victory lap. If things are falling behind, if the problems that the “State of digital government review” identified are not being rectified, this measure would ensure that they can be scrutinised and held to account. We cannot let the Government fall again into the state that their review found them to be in. I hope that my new clauses could fire the starting gun for a Government that is ambitious and innovative about their data use and digitisation in future.
The Minister heard me make many of the same arguments on Second Reading. I was pleased with the warmth of his reception then, as well as the broad understanding of his Department that we need to do more and do it better. I hope that he can provide me with some commitments today on the issues that I have raised, for the benefit of the citizen’s experience and of everyone we represent. I will end by quoting from the conclusion of his Department’s review—I am grateful to the Government for publishing those findings—which sums up the points I have made excellently:
“Digital is one of the most powerful forces for public service reform, and when it is successful, it changes lives and the public experience of government…However, our approaches to leadership, structure, measurement, talent and funding do not yet do justice to this potential: it is time to transform and reform the way we do digital.”
Chris Bryant
I note that before the break we had the Sugababes, and that now we have “The Tempest”—I think the hon. Gentleman managed to get in a very brief quote, or I guess his version of it: O brave new world that has such data in it.
The hon. Gentleman excoriates the Government for moving too slowly and for not taking enough powers to be able to move faster, and yet several of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled have been ones that insist that we should have more accountability to Parliament and a slower process, and should not have such regulation-making powers. It is often difficult to decide between those two because we want enough parliamentary scrutiny, but in an area of rapid technological change it is important that legislation is able to move fast enough to adapt. The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to digital inclusion as a key aspect of the Bill. If we are going to take forward a digital nation and a digital Government plan, we have to factor in the fact that some people will simply not be able to take part unless we take radical action to include them digitally.
Steff Aquarone
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in schedule 14, page 242, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) The appointment of the Chair of the Information Commission must be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment seeks to strengthen the regulator’s independence by subjecting key appointments to Parliamentary approval.
Schedule 14.
Clauses 118 to 120 stand part.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I rise to speak to clause 117, the first clause in part 6, on reforming the information commission. Part 6 sets out provisions to abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer its functions to a new body, the information commission, with a chief executive and board of directors. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are substantially taking forward some measures on reform of the ICO envisaged in previous iterations of this Bill, including the previous Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Indeed, the ICO has said that the changes under the Bill will bring its governance structure into line with that of comparable regulators. Given some of the challenges and opportunities that our data-driven economy will present, the new information commission must be set up in the right way to perform its regulatory functions as effectively as possible.
There is no doubt that the scope of the information commission’s role will grow, commensurate with the changes brought in by the Bill—for example, the obligation to have regard, in the performance of its role, to factors such as promoting innovation and competition. We are supportive of those aims, but it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly address some of the concerns raised by my noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in the other place, particularly the Minister’s strategy for ensuring that the information commission is provided with clarity as to its responsibilities and obligations when it comes to economic growth, and how he will ensure that that remains consistent with the information commission’s primary functions relating to data protection.
Victoria Collins
I will speak only briefly about amendment 52, but I would like to think that after all the Liberal Democrat interventions today, no one will have any doubt that we take data very seriously. I realise that we have outlined a lot of proposals, but they are all in the spirit of helping to shape the data vision and of saying how important we feel it is. Amendment 52 is about the questioning of scrutiny. I am happy not to press the amendment, but again it is important to make sure we have trust in line with innovation.
Chris Bryant
The Government are, of course, committed to the independence of the ICO. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the recommendations about changing the structure were entirely ones that were advanced in the previous version of the Bill and supported by the previous Government. We think that it will just make it more efficient, more effective and more transparent.
As I have said, we are committed to the ICO’s independence; it is a vital part of its role. That is why the new role of the chair of the information commission will be appointed by His Majesty, by letters patent— the same approach taken for the current Information Commissioner role. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has agreed with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the role of chair will be listed as a significant appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
The shadow Minister’s questions about how the Information Commissioner can balance those two requirements are perfectly legitimate. I think that they are questions for the Information Commissioner, and they are the kind of questions that could legitimately be asked in a pre-appointment session with the Select Committee. I do not, therefore, believe that the amendment from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is necessary.
However, I would like to put on record that the Government intend to maintain the title of the Information Commissioner in respect of the chair of the information commission, acknowledging the fact that the identity and brand of the Information Commissioner is valued and recognised domestically and internationally. We do not want to lose that, so we intend to preserve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Information standards for health and adult social care in England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Health and social care data records—
“(1) A person processing health and/or social care data for research purposes must maintain a record of the basis on which that data was shared or accessed.
(2) Such a person must make available a description of—
(a) the categories of data used,
(b) the intended research purpose,
(c) where possible, the scope of organisations or persons who will have access to the data,
(d) how individuals can exercise their data subject rights under Article 13 to Article 22 of the UK GDPR.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out requirements for how the record set out by subsection (2) must be published.”
This new clause would require researchers using health/social care data to keep and publish records explaining what data is used and for what reason.
Government amendment 14.
Schedule 15.
Chris Bryant
Clause 121 and schedule 15 make clear that information standards published under section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022, will include standards relating to information technology or IT services used, or intended to be used, in connection with the processing of information related to the provision of health and adult social care in England.
For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a standardised way using common specifications, which goes to some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk in quoting Government publications. These provisions are an important step towards creating a modern health and adult social care service, where systems are integrated and staff have quicker access to patient data, freeing up time that can be spent with patients.
In previous debates, several Members have referred to physical records, and I have referred to one hospital in Doncaster that employs 42 members of staff solely to carry around physical records. There are still departments in many parts of the NHS in England that are producing more physical, handwritten notes every day of the week. That must be nonsense; it must make it more difficult for us to deliver connected services in future and it cannot be in the interests of the patient, because we would want the patient to be able to hold in their hand an app with everything that relates to their own medical health, almost like a medical passport of their own. That simply is not possible if all the different bits of the NHS in England cannot work together. Government amendment 14 is a technical change to ensure that any personal data processed in the exercise of the public censure power, set out in schedule 15, is subject to the relevant existing data protection legislation.
New clause 3 would require researchers to keep and publish records about the health and social care data that they have processed for research. There are already extensive transparency requirements for health data, and the Information Commissioner’s Office provides detailed advice to the public on their data rights. The law only allows confidential patient information to be used for research without consent when it has been approved by the Health Research Authority. There are detailed arrangements for this approval, based in law, and the transparency arrangements include published registers of approved applications showing what data is used for what purpose and by whom. I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted will accept that this means her new clause is not necessary.
Dr Spencer
This part of the Bill is a concatenation of different provisions relating to data, which is one of the reasons why I think the Bill is so glorious; it covers such a wide scope of things to sort out. I will speak to some of the deeper debates that we will have later, but I am quite glad to start off by speaking to clause 121. As a former doctor—my wife is a doctor too—I particularly welcome these provisions and the opportunity they provide to ensure that health data can be shared properly.
I would say to the Minister that the issue is not merely carrying around patient notes; certainly, in my experience the issue is whether patient notes turn up in the first place at all. As somebody who does not work in the health service any more, I see the other side, where the burden is quite often on the patient to provide their notes or to give information repeatedly that different parts of the system already have. That is a wholly inefficient way of doing things. One of the benefits of having the NHS set up as it is must surely be the ability to have coherent approaches to the sharing of data, so that we do not have this situation with notes.
It is not merely an inconvenience. Patients can be exposed to repeated tests and repeated imaging, all of which have a degree of iatrogenic harm and risk, plus delays to progressing. My former field of work was psychiatry, and the places where I worked were very quick to adopt electronic patient records, noting not only the importance of data sharing, but the risk of retraumatising people when repeated disclosures of traumatic events are required—in part, I worry, because that data is not shared as effectively as it could be.
I raised the point on Second Reading that changes in this area will need to be supported by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare settings have access to IT of sufficient quality to support the new systems. Can the Minister provide an update on his strategy—although I recognise it is not precisely his strategy; it is shared with the Department of Health and Social Care—on renewing NHS IT infrastructure and ensuring that the necessary kit is put in place so that the provisions can be rolled out to maximum advantage? This is about not merely the sharing of data, but the fact that faxing information is no longer required, and we must have the computer infrastructure necessary for data sharing.
Victoria Collins
I will speak specifically on new clause 3. On the question of trust, I know that even the British Medical Association has highlighted concerns over transparency and ensuring that we unlock that innovation and bring that data—in other words, that people are willing, ready and happy to be part of this. New clause 3 therefore highlights that health and social data, when used for research, should have clear data categories that are properly recorded, and that individuals have a right to understand how their data is used. However, I appreciate the comments from the Minister, and I am happy not to press the new clause.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nearly caught me out because I had to look up “iatrogenic”. Basically, I think it means that when someone is being treated for something, it can lead to harmful effects. I am worried about that, because I have a PET CT scan tomorrow afternoon and an MRI scan on Saturday, so I am worried that I am being subjected to more risk because of all this imaging.
The truth of the matter is that a patient wants to be able to access as many of their records as possible—whether it is their blood tests or whatever else. That is a significant change that has happened in the last few years. It is about putting the patient back in a key role in the NHS, and them being able to manage their own data, but that simply cannot happen unless we pass this legislation and roll out changes across the whole of the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question, although he admitted that it is not really my plan to develop these things; I might have to get the Department of Health and Social Care to write to him to lay some of that out. That is part of the work that we need to do at the moment. This is not in the Bill, but as a Welsh MP, I would like us to have shared standards across the whole of the United Kingdom, because there are people using different parts of the NHS across the different nations. That would make simple, common sense.
I also worry sometimes about cyber-security, with every different part of the NHS buying its own systems, and whether those systems all have the necessary cyber-security to make sure that data is preserved safely. I believe that the Bill will enable us to get a much more secure set of data provisions on the way health information can be shared between different parts of the NHS in England.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15
Information standards for health and adult social care in England
Amendment made: 14, in schedule 15, page 255, line 35, at end insert—
“(5) This section does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by this section).
(6) In this section, ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)
This amendment provides that information may not be processed for the purposes of new section 251ZC of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (public censure of relevant IT providers) if that would contravene the data protection legislation.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Retention of information by providers of internet services in connection with death of child
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Compliance with Section 124 of this Act and Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Online Safety Act 2023—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on provisions of Section 124 of this Act.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis of the level compliance to notices requiring social media companies, including Category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, to preserve data relating to the use of specified regulated services by children where that information may be needed to respond to an information notice issued under s.101 or to produce a report under s.163 of the Online Safety Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing compliance with Section 124 of this Act and Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
Chris Bryant
Clause 124 delivers on the Labour manifesto commitments to further support coroners, and procurators fiscal in Scotland, to access information held by online services after a child’s death. This is a very sensitive issue, and we have tried to address it as such. The provision will require Ofcom, when informed by a coroner, to issue a data preservation notice to specified online service companies. That will help to ensure that those online service companies retain all the relevant data they have on a child so that it will be available on request should a coroner later require it as part of an inquest into a child’s death. The clause demonstrates the Government’s commitments to keeping children safe online and supporting families that have endured unimaginable losses. I am conscious that some might want us to go further; further to the conversation we had earlier, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion on that before we reach Report.
On new clause 29, I reassure the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted that there are already strong powers to ensure that companies comply with data preservation notices. Those include the power to issue fines for non-compliance of up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, and the ability to hold senior managers criminally liable for non-compliance. Those sanctions will help to ensure that online services comply with any notice issued under section 101 of the Online Safety Act 2023. Under a provision in that Act, the Secretary of State must already review the effectiveness of the Act’s regime, including the data preservation measures, between two and five years after it comes into force and must produce a report detailing his findings, which will then be laid in Parliament. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not feel the need to press her new clause to a vote.
Dr Spencer
This is not the appropriate place to discuss new clause 30, but I hope that there will be ample opportunity on Report for further discussion of the broader issue, which is of great importance.
Victoria Collins
Clause 124 concerns the retention of information by internet service providers in the deeply tragic event of a child’s death. It rightly acknowledges the potential need to access such data for crucial investigations and to understand the circumstances surrounding such a loss. However, mere provision for data retention is insufficient without a mechanism to ensure its effective implementation in line with broader online safety efforts. That is why we have proposed new clause 29, which ensures Government oversight by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a compliance report within 12 months. The report will assess whether social media platforms, including category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, are preserving data when needed for investigations, regulatory actions and legal proceedings. I appreciate the comments from the Minister.
Although it is not in this Bill, this is an opportunity to highlight the Liberal Democrat’s belief that category 1 services should not be linked to the size of online platforms alone and that platform functionality and other characteristics should determine whether a regulated provider is classed as category 1 or 2. We know that harmful content, abuse and illegal activity leave a digital footprint but, without enforcement, key evidence may be erased before authorities can act. The new clause ensures that platforms are held accountable, preventing data from being lost if needed. It is about not just policy, but ensuring that social media companies meet their legal obligations and that enforcement is transparent and effective. Once again, I appreciate the open discussion of these issues that the Minister has put forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Retention of biometric data and recordable offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 54, in clause 127, page 161, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) An authority which retains biometric data under this Part must—
(a) review the necessity and proportionality of retention every 12 months, and
(b) erase the biometric data unless continued retention is strictly necessary for a lawful purposes, the reasons for which must be recorded and reviewable by the Information Commission.
(6B) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the retention and use of biometric data under this Part, including statistical data on the number of records retained, the time period of retainment, and the purposes of retainment.”.
This amendment would introduce mandatory periodic reviews of retained biometric data, requiring erasure unless the authority can demonstrate ongoing necessity. It also would mandate annual transparency reporting to Parliament on biometric use and retention.
Clauses 127 and 128 stand part.
Victoria Collins
I did not realise that we would be debating all these amendments today. I appreciate that my voice is probably being heard loud and clear, which was not the original intention, but these are important issues. Clause 126 addresses the sensitive issue of biometric data retention, particularly for law enforcement purposes. Amendment 54 strengthens safeguards by requiring judicial review methods before data can be retained beyond a defined period. That is where we are raising the alarm to ensure that there is a defined period, and that there is cause to ensure that data is not kept beyond that. It is a crucial protection to prevent undue encroachment on civil liberties.
The use of biometric data must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and overreach: while we acknowledge the role of such data in tackling crime, we must ensure that retention policies are both proportionate and necessary. Amendment 54 aligns the UK’s approach with best practices, ensuring that security does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady has tabled another amendment that calls for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. I hope that I am proving that the requirement to put those reports in the Bill is unnecessary.
The amendment would introduce a new duty on the police to review the retention of biometric data under clause 127, and a duty for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the use of that data. Clause 127 does not alter the existing duty in the Data Protection Act 2018, which ensures that the police retain only personal data, including sensitive personal data such as biometrics, as long as it is considered “necessary and proportionate”—precisely the terms that she advocated.
The biometrics commissioner already has independent oversight of biometric data retained under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and has a statutory duty to report to Parliament annually. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation also has statutory oversight of all the powers in the 2008 Act, and reports annually to Parliament. For those reasons—without doubting the hon. Lady’s intent—I hope that she will not press the amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 127 to 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 135
Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I propose that the clause does not stand part of the Bill. Clause 140, which was tabled in the House of Lords, is a regulation-making power that would enable terms relating to core personal data attributes to be defined consistently across data held by public authorities. The intention behind this measure is that the power could be used to define the term “sex”. We seek to overturn this clause for the following reasons.
The Government believe that public sector data, including data about sex and gender, should continue to be collected based on the specific data requirements of those collecting the data, and their users, which differs across contexts. That is in line with the data minimisation principle set out in the data protection legislation. We do not think it is appropriate to have core personal data attributes defined in regulations in the way that is proposed.
Furthermore, setting out such definitions using secondary legislation could create confusion where terms are already defined in legislation, and so—depending on the approach taken—could cut across the existing definitions. For example, defining sex could cut across the existing legal framework and undermine protections in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
I am, however, keen to reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the importance of harmonising data and have already commenced important work on standards across Government—via a cross-Government working group led by the Data Standards Authority—to define the core attributes of a person. Last year, the Office for Statistics Regulation published guidance on collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity, and in December 2024 the Government Statistical Service published a work plan for harmonised standards in this space.
The Government’s belief is that such matters are crucial and more appropriately considered holistically outside the Bill. The intention of the Bill is not to define or remark on the definitions of sex and gender, or other core personal data attributes. I therefore recommend that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Dr Spencer
As the Minister noted, the clause is a provision that was introduced in Committee in the other place, along with clause 28(3) and (4), and clause 45(6), which have now been removed from the Bill pursuant to our decisions in Committee.
Clause 140 aims to ensure the accuracy of data underpinning digital forms of verifying identity, and more broadly. To a degree, it is ironic that we live in a world where we have to debate data dictionaries when it comes to the definition of sex, but I think the point about data dictionaries more generally, over and above the focus on sex data in this debate, is nevertheless sound.
We are aware of the Government’s argument that the clauses inserted in the other place pertaining to data accuracy—in particular, clause 45(6)—are not compatible with certain provisions of the European convention on human rights and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to the Committee on that, among other matters, but I do not think that his explanation gives any rationale for the removal of clause 140.
We strongly disagree with the Government’s position for the reasons I set out last week, but I will not rehash those arguments now. Rather, I want to make a simple argument in favour of retaining the clause on data dictionaries that the Government intend to remove. Clause 140 grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations establishing the definitions and associated metadata for core personal data attributes. The Secretary of State may require that those definitions are used for, among other things, personal data recorded by public authorities, under subsection (1)(d), and the digital verification service, under subsection (1)(a).
My noble friend Lord Lucas compellingly stated the case in support of his data dictionary amendment in the other place, saying that
“if we are to live in a data-rich world, we really need a set of well-understood, good definitions for the basic information we are collecting.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 2025; Vol. 843, c. 237-238.]
It really is that simple: giving the Secretary of State the power to define those core personal data attributes so that a consistent approach can be taken across the board by public authorities and entities engaged in digital verification services.
My question for the Minister is, therefore: what is the objection to the Secretary of State having that power to clarify the meanings of those essential terms, which we need to define data attributes? A clear definition of data attributes, and in particular the meaning of sex, is a foundational building block that will help to ensure that the data we collect can be harnessed for good-quality research on which sound public policy decisions can be based.
In the other place, the DSIT Minister, the noble Lord Vallance of Balham, acknowledged the need for data to be “based in truth” and “consistent and clear”. However, he opposed this clause on the basis that the Government would prefer to consider the matter of data accuracy and consistency holistically, outside the scope of the Bill. In that regard, he pointed to ongoing research in the field, including the Sullivan review of data, stats and research on sex and gender, which was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government, and the findings of which this Government would like to take into account in developing their policies in the area.
I welcome the fact that the Government intend to take a closer look at the importance of data accuracy, especially in relation to the collection of sex data, but there is no need to kick the can down the road. The clause compels the Secretary of State to do nothing—well, not in an active sense—[Interruption.] If only. It does not compel the Secretary of State in an active sense, but it does give him the important power to put definitions of core personal data attributes in place once the important Sullivan review and other studies have been published and considered. As we have mentioned a few times, the Bill has gone through many iterations and a long legislative period. We believe that this clause will be useful, if not essential, for resolving some of these issues.
Getting those basic definitions right is essential. If we do not, there could be mistakes that could become entrenched in the records of public authorities. That could lead to skewed research findings on important societal matters, such as health disparities and outcomes across the sectors, as well as employment opportunities and equal pay. For those and many other good reasons, let us take this opportunity to get the basics right.
In that regard, I encourage the Minister to heed the timeless words of Julie Andrews with which he opened Committee stage. As far as definitions for core data attributes are concerned,
“Let’s start at the very beginning,
A very good place to start.”
Chris Bryant
Mr Turner, I have confidence in confidence alone; I have confidence in you—if we are going to do Julie Andrews.
This is obviously a serious matter. The clause pretends to be just a regulation-making power that would allow the Government to publish a data dictionary by regulations. It is framed as a means to promote data consistency, but its actual intent is to push the Government to set a single definition of the term “sex” through a public authority data dictionary that public authorities would need to have regard to when processing data. As I have said several times in debates already, that is inappropriate. The whole purpose of data is that it is set within a context and that that context changes. For instance, the data that is required for the running of a hospital or prison is different from that required for the hiring of a car or the purchase of a property. That is why we think it is important that we do not go down this route.
The Opposition are again trying to give the Secretary of State more powers to do things by regulation, but it would be completely inappropriate to develop this data dictionary by secondary legislation, which would be unamendable and therefore subject to only minimal debate. I completely agree with the noble Lord Vallance that data has to be consistent and accurate, but it also has to be in the context for which it is being used. That is the key determinant that some Members have not understood in the Government’s argument. I still suggest that clause 140 does not stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 141, page 173, line 27, leave out
“or soliciting the creation of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 29 to 48.
Clause stand part.
Chris Bryant
The amendments are the result of considerable discussion between officials, who have suddenly joined me as my inspiration, and the noble Baroness Owen. As promised in the other place, we have tabled further amendments relating to the offence that was included in the House of Lords. Recognising how crucial time limits are in this sensitive area, we made a commitment that is fulfilled by amendment 38, which would extend the statutory time limits to enable prosecutions to be brought at any date that is both within six months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge to justify prosecution, and within three years from when the offence was committed. By doing that, perpetrators will not be able to get away with creating a deepfake just because no one knew about it in time for the prosecution to commence within six months.
Amendment 31 will ensure that the law comprehensively criminalises asking someone to create a deepfake, regardless of where they are based or whether the image was made. We absolutely agree with the policy rationale put forward by Baroness Owen, which is why we did not oppose the amendment on solicitation. Our amendments replace the term “solicitation” with a new requesting offence, which has been drafted to ensure that it is comprehensive and functions as it should, and that it is clear to the courts how it should be understood and applied in practice within the wider criminal law framework.
Dr Spencer
I start by congratulating my noble Friend Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for her hard work and tenacity in raising the profile of the harms caused to victims of sexually explicit deepfakes, and ensuring that clauses criminalising that activity were inserted into the Bill in the other place. We very much welcome the Government’s engagement in this important area, and we broadly support their amendments, which substantially deliver the changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that Baroness Owen sought in the other place.
In particular, we welcome Government amendment 31, which substantially reflects the offence of solicitation under clause 141, but could the Minister put a bit more flesh on the bones of the reasoning and necessity behind substituting the term “requesting” for “solicitation”? Does he regard those terms as having equivalent meaning in this context? If not, what is the material difference in the approach to terminology?
I am thankful for the Minister’s comments on the “reasonable excuse” defence, but I have some questions about what exactly a reasonable excuse looks like in this context. Does he have any examples to aid our understanding of what constitutes a reasonable excuse in these circumstances? Based on that, do the Government intend to publish guidance on the scope of this defence and its explanation?
We are pleased to see the inclusion of Government amendment 38, inserting among other things an extended limitation period of three years from the date of creation, or request for creation, of a purported intimate image for bringing criminal charges. This will increase the scope for victims to seek justice where these images come to light some time after creation.
Victoria Collins
The Liberal Democrats very much welcome clause 141 and action taken on violence against women and girls in particular, including online. However, the clause talks about creating or soliciting the creation of purported intimate images of adults, but it does not necessarily deal with the sharing of them. How do we hold to account those who are sharing intimate images that they should not be?
Chris Bryant
I should have put on the record, as the shadow Minister did, my gratitude and congratulations to Baroness Owen for her tenacity; that point was absolutely right.
Chris Bryant
Excellent: we all agree that Baroness Owen has done a great piece of work for us, and we are grateful. Incidentally, I am also grateful to Ministry of Justice officials who worked with DSIT officials on the amendments before us today, which provide a more comprehensive version of what was originally argued for.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked me about the difference between solicitation and requesting. Often, it is considered that solicitation would require some form of exchange of money. Obviously, that would not necessarily be the case in this context, which is why we have “requesting”, a broader category than solicitation. A request includes doing an act that could reasonably be taken to be a request—for example, nodding or otherwise indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer. It also includes both making a request directed to a particular person or persons and making a request available to one or more people, or people generally, without directing it to a particular person or people. In other words, that is broader than what solicitation would have required. I think Baroness Owen agrees with us that this is therefore a more comprehensive offence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the “reasonable excuse” defence. Let us say that a software developer wants to ensure that he or she—probably “he” in this case—has developed the right safeguards in his software to stop people generating intimate deepfakes without the consent of the person depicted. In some circumstances, he will have a reasonable excuse where, in the course of the testing to ensure that the software does not create such images, he creates a purported intimate image. That might be an instance of a reasonable excuse. I do not want to lay out what reasonable excuses might be, because the courts are so used to dealing with the concept of a reasonable excuse. There are many offences to which it applies, and the courts, as I have said, are used to dealing with them.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked me about sharing—is sharing a deepfake an offence? Sharing a deepfake intimate image without consent is already an offence under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I hope that, without further ado, we can agree the amendments and the clause.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendments made: 29, in clause 141, page 173, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 174.
This amendment removes a new offence of soliciting the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult. For a replacement offence, see Amendment 31.
Amendment 30, in clause 141, page 174, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”
This amendment adds a defence of reasonable excuse to the new offence of creating a purported intimate image of an adult.
Amendment 31, in clause 141, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).
(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—
(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or
(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.
(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—
(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and
(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.
(6) An offence under this section is committed—
(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,
(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and
(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”
This amendment makes it an offence to request the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult without consent.
Amendment 32, in clause 141, page 174, line 30, leave out “soliciting” and insert “requesting”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 29 and 31.
Amendment 33, in clause 141, page 174, line 32, leave out “section 66E” and insert “sections 66E and 66EA”.
This amendment provides that the definitions in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).
Amendment 34, in clause 141, page 174, line 33, leave out “the creation of a purported intimate image” and insert “an act”.
This amendment, and Amendments 35 and 36, adjust the definition of “consent” in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that it works for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).
Amendment 35, in clause 141, page 174, line 34, leave out “of creation”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in clause 141, page 174, line 35, at end insert
“(and see also section 66EA(5))”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.
Amendment 37, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—
“(8) The “maximum term for summary offences” means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”
This amendment explains what is meant by the “maximum term for summary offences” in new sections 66E and 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (New section 66EA is inserted by Amendment 31).
Amendment 38, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—
“66G Creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult: time limit for prosecution
(1) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a magistrates’ court may try an information or written charge relating to an offence under section 66E or 66EA if the information is laid or the charge is issued—
(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge.
(2) A certificate signed by or on behalf of a prosecutor stating the date on which evidence described in subsection (1)(b) came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”
This amendment extends the period during which a person may be prosecuted for an offence under new section 66E or 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult).
Amendment 39, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, after “66E” insert “, 66EA”.
This amendment provides that references to an image of a person in new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see Amendment 31), like references to such an image in new section 66E of that Act, do not include an image of an imaginary person.
Amendment 40, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—
‘177DA Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences
(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).
(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).’”
This amendment provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Armed Forces Act 2006 in connection with an offence under new section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).
Amendment 41, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—
“(3B) In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences to be disregarded in reckoning whether an act is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence: England and Wales), after paragraph 38 insert—
‘Sexual Offences Act 2003
38ZA An offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).’”
This amendment provides that a person cannot be guilty, under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, of encouraging or assisting the offence under new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of a purported intimate image) (see Amendment 31).
Amendment 42, in clause 141, page 175, line 17, leave out
“or soliciting the creation of”.—(Chris Bryant.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Clause 141, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 142
Power to make consequential amendment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 143 to 146 stand part.
Government amendment 16.
Clause 147 stand part.
Chris Bryant
I will speak only to Government amendment 16, which is highly technical—there will be a test on it afterwards. It removes the privilege amendment inserted at Lords Third Reading to clause 147, which was necessary given the Bill was introduced in the Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 142 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 144
Extent
Amendments made: 43, to clause 144, page 177, line 25, leave out “141” and insert
“141(1) to (3) and (4)”.
This amendment, and Amendment 44, are consequential on Amendments 40 and 41.
Amendment 44, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, leave out “extends” and insert “extend”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 43.
Amendment 45, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) section 141(3A) (amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006) extends to—
(i) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
(ii) the Isle of Man, and
(iii) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar;”
This amendment provides for the amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006 made by Amendment 40 to have the same extent as that Act.
Amendment 46, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) section 141(3B) (amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment provides for the amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007 made by Amendment 41 to have the same extent as that Act.
Amendment 47, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The powers conferred by section 384(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (powers to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and to make provisions apply with modifications as they extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar) may be exercised in relation to section 177DA of that Act (inserted by section 141(3A) of this Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)
This amendment provides that the new section inserted in the Armed Forces Act 2006 by Amendment 40 may, like the other provisions of that Act, be extended to the Channel Islands and modified as it extends to those Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar.
Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 145 and 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 147
Short title
Amendment made: 16, in clause 147, page 179, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—(Chris Bryant.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 147, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Impact of this Act and other developments at national and international level on EU data adequacy decision
“Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact on the European Union data adequacy decisions relating to the United Kingdom of the following—
(a) this Act;
(b) other changes to the United Kingdom’s domestic frameworks which are relevant to the matters listed in Article 45(2) of the UK GDPR (transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision);
(c) relevant changes to the United Kingdom’s international commitments or other obligations arising from legally binding conventions or instruments, as well as from its participation in multilateral or regional systems, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data.”—(Victoria Collins.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act and other changes to the UK’s domestic and international frameworks relating to data adequacy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Victoria Collins
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
It will be no surprise that the Liberal Democrats support greater collaboration with our European partners. Local people and businesses across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as well as up and down the country, continue to highlight the importance of working with the EU and for ever closer union.
New clause 2 seeks to ensure that any changes in our data laws or international commitments do not jeopardise our data adequacy, which is due to be reassessed by the EU in June this year. The Minister may be pushing through the Bill to ensure that we get our adequacy in line with that requirement, which is crucial, because the UK’s ability to transfer data internationally underpins business, research and security partnerships.
Data adequacy is what allows personal data to flow freely between the UK and the EU without the need for costly and complex additional safeguards. A report by the New Economics Foundation put the cost of data inadequacy with the EU at between £1 billion to £1.6 billion for British businesses, highlighting the importance of aligning with our European neighbours on this. The UK is also party to various international agreements and conventions relating to data protection.
New clause 2 ensures that we assess how our international commitments may impact the EU’s view of our data protection framework. If we fail to maintain strong data protections, we risk losing our EU data adequacy status, an outcome that could cost billions in compliance burdens, disrupt cross-border operations and hinder UK businesses from accessing global markets. That would be a hammer blow to the UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that rely on seamless data exchange with our European partners.
Supporting new clause 2 is about ensuring that Britain continues to lead on data governance, innovation and global collaboration. Data adequacy is not just a legal issue; it is a fundamental element of maintaining economic growth, international trust and our competitive edge. We welcome assurances—and indeed the discussions I have already had with the Minister—on data adequacy with Europe being maintained.
Dr Spencer
I just want to make two points. I was a bit confused by the timings in this new clause. I think we all agree on the importance of data adequacy, but my understanding is that, by three months post Royal Assent, we will already have to have a data adequacy agreement in place, given the time that it will take to achieve Royal Assent.
The other point I wanted to make was that I think this might be the last time that I get to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in this Bill Committee, so I want to thank Members, officials and the Chairs for taking part in our proceedings. I look forward to further debate on Report.
Chris Bryant
First, I should have also thanked the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), because she has been intimately involved in bringing forward the measures that we debated in the last group. My apologies for forgetting that, Mr Turner.
On new clause 2, I completely agree that EU data adequacy is vital, but I completely disagree with the new clause, because I think it is technically deficient. One reason for that is the timeline that it lays out of three months, by which time I hope we might be able to have made progress. I also think that it undermines the independence of the process that the European Commission has to go through. The European Commission has already confirmed that its review of its two adequacy decisions for the UK are currently under way—ahead of the deadline, which is good. As Lord Vallance stated in the House of Lords, DSIT and the Home Office have dedicated teams supporting the European Commission’s technical review, as required.
I acknowledge the unilateral nature of the adequacy assessment made by the European Commission. For that reason, it is important to provide the European Commission with the discretion needed to complete its process, which I am afraid new clause 2 would undermine. So, for that reason, I am resisting the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats.
Victoria Collins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Public-interest data trusts and communities
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’).
(2) That strategy must include—
(a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data,
(b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets,
(c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts,
(d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared,
(e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships,
(f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review, and
(g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, UK Research and Innovation, relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”—(Victoria Collins.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 25—Promotion of public-interest data trusts and communities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’).
(2) That strategy must include—
(a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data;
(b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets;
(c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts;
(d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared;
(e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships;
(f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review; and
(g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy
(3) The Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Information Commission,
(b) UK Research and Innovation,
(c) relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use.
New clause 28—Public-interest data altruism—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, establish a framework to recognise and register ‘data altruism organisations’ that manage personal data voluntarily contributed for public-interest objectives.
(2) A data altruism organisation registered under this section must—
(a) demonstrate enhanced governance, transparency, and accountability measures;
(b) publish clear terms on how personal data is used or shared; and
(c) uphold safeguards protecting data subjects’ rights.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) provide for eligibility criteria and the application process for data altruism organisations;
(b) specify ongoing compliance and auditing requirements;
(c) establish processes for revocation of registration where an organisation fails to meet the criteria.
(4) In developing the framework under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, data subjects, civil society organisations, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require creation of a statutory framework for data altruism allowing organisations to register as data altruism organisations where they collect and process personal data for public-interest purposes under enhanced transparency, governance, and accountability standards.
Victoria Collins
This is my last intervention, which I am sure the Committee will all be very sad about, and it is on data. I know that we have talked a lot about public trust, but I also want to highlight that, as Liberal Democrats, we are also excited about unlocking the opportunities from data. These new clauses speak to that.
New clauses 6, 25 and 28 together would ensure that we harness the benefits of data while upholding fundamental rights. Too often, data is seen as something that happens to people rather than something that they have a say in. We have an opportunity here to unlock even more opportunities, not just in Government data systems but in how data is used across research, public services and wider society.
New clause 6 calls on the Government to develop a clear strategy for public-interest data trusts and community data governance. That means allowing individuals and communities to contribute their data for socially beneficial purposes while retaining meaningful control. Imagine if patients suffering from rare diseases could securely share their data for medical research, knowing that it would be used solely for public good, not commercial gain; that is a future we can build.
New clause 25 would ensure that the Government take a proactive role in shaping public-interest data governance, setting clear ethical guidelines for how data can be shared securely and fairly. This is about moving beyond reactive regulation. Instead, we should actively create frameworks that allow innovation to flourish while protecting those rights. If we want the UK to be a leader in responsible AI and data stewardship, we need clear structures that allow businesses, researchers and civil society to work together with confidence.
New clause 28 would establish a framework for data altruism, ensuring that those who wish to donate their data for public interest projects can do so safely and transparently. Consider a family in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted who want to contribute to a dementia research project. Right now, there is no clear framework guaranteeing that their data will be protected from misuse. By formalising ethical data-sharing models, we can enable research and innovation without compromising trust. These new clauses share a simple principle: data must serve people, not the other way around. We must strike the right balance, harnessing data to drive innovation while ensuring that public confidence and ethical standards remain at the core of our approach.
We have a huge economic opportunity. The UK has led the way in setting high regulatory and Government standards in sectors such as fintech, law and insurance, where trust, transparency and compliance are critical. We should build on those strengths and apply the same principles to emerging fields such as AI, healthtech and responsible data sharing. By learning from what works and setting clear guidelines now, we can unlock investment, support start-ups and ensure that the UK becomes a hub for innovative, data-driven businesses. That is why I urge colleagues to consider new clauses 6, 25 and 28, as well as the principles put forward in them, to ensure that we build a data-driven future that is transparent, accountable and a gold standard for responsible innovation and public involvement.
Dr Spencer
I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s comments, and I want to reflect on one point. She presented, or at least seemed to present, a tension between public interests and the commercial use of data. It is really important that we recognise that a lot of health research, particularly pharmaceutical development, is for commercial purposes, with a huge amount of benefits for health as a consequence.
I do not think it is to right to try to sabotage the use of data for commercial purposes, because it has huge benefits for the care and treatment of people. We depend on pharmaceutical companies to spend the risk money, for which a state organisation would never have the appetite, to develop the new drugs of the future. It is important to be quite careful when one is thinking about commercial interests versus non-commercial interests for scientific research.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that this is her last contribution to the debate, so in the words of the “The Little Mermaid”, I suppose we are poor, unfortunate souls. I thank her for tabling these new clauses, and she raised issues that were also discussed in the other place.
On new clause 6, as my noble Friend Baroness Jones noted in the House of Lords, the Government support giving individuals greater agency over their data and a robust regime of data subject rights. We have already announced our intention to publish a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries. It is important that we establish a firm evidence base before we make any changes to people’s data rights, so I hope that that makes new clause 6 unnecessary.
On new clause 25, as I have just said, we have already published a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries, which is why we need to proceed carefully before going down the route offered by the new clause. Finally, on new clause 28, the Government acknowledge that there are various models of data intermediaries, including those that manage voluntarily contributed personal data for the common good, such as data co-operatives and trusted research environments.
We have already announced our call for evidence, which will seek views on various aspects relevant to data intermediaries, including the delegation of data subject rights to third parties, barriers preventing data intermediaries from operating at full capacity and risk factors associated with significant growth in their activities. This will also include views on different models of data intermediaries, including those focused on data altruism, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that we have already announced our intention to act in these areas, I very much hope that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw the motion.
Victoria Collins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Right to use non-digital verification services
“(1) This section applies when an organisation—
(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and
(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.
(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—
(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and
(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Victoria Collins
I thank the Clerks, as well as you, Mr Turner, and other Chairs who have been on this Committee. I also thank the Government and Committee members for working together to get through the Bill very quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
English Rugby Union: Governance
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the governance of English rugby union.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, for what I hope is the first of many times. I come to this place as a rugby union fan, an ex-coach and ex-referee. I also declare an interest—my brother is a long-standing director of rugby at London Cornish rugby club. I am delighted to see the west country, an excellent servant of English rugby union, well represented here today.
As a Cornish MP, it is hard for me to adequately express just how important our grassroots rugby clubs are to the fabric of our communities. Some of the communities in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in my constituency suffer from extremes of poverty and deprivation. Life for many is a day-to-day struggle to feed the kids, heat the home and balance challenging working hours. For many, it is a case of muddling through. The one constant is our grassroots rugby clubs, offering children from all backgrounds that life-enhancing schooling in discipline, respect, teamwork, the joy of winning and how to bounce back from defeat. For many children, our clubs offer a vital controlled outlet for pent-up frustrations from challenging home and school lives.
I have used the word “grassroots” several times so far, and I do so intentionally. While others may wish to contribute by voicing governance concerns relating to clubs in higher leagues, I am focusing largely on the concerns that have been expressed to me from dozens of clubs below the first two tiers of the English men’s game. I am focusing on the men’s game because, in my view, the health of the women’s game—although still under-represented in terms of grassroots facilities—has come a huge way over the last 10 years. Credit where credit is due—those responsible for its development should be commended, although there is still much work to be done to support the women’s game.
I am acutely aware that while there are profound concerns with the financial state of some clubs in the premiership and the championship, grassroots rugby is facing an existential crisis. I will focus on three areas: governance, player welfare and funding. Although I refer to examples, the entire focus of the debate should be on how we work together, cross-party, looking forwards, to create the sustainable environment for our great game to not just survive, but thrive.
On governance, I noted with interest the recent Rugby Football Union consultation and the resulting document, “Our track record and areas of focus”, which was circulated to RFU members. I have to admit that it left me slightly bemused. It seemed to be suggesting that all is pretty hunky-dory with English rugby—a little bit of tinkering here and there, and we are all good. There was not the slightest hint of contrition or even an acceptance that many clubs are on the brink.
Maybe I have been talking to the wrong clubs, but in my conversations—admittedly, considerably fewer than the 400 that are reported to have been consulted for the RFU document—there are profound concerns about the direction of grassroots English rugby, the voices of which have for too long been drowned out by muscular lobbying from vested interests. There is no better indication that all is not well than the number of grassroots clubs right across England that I spoke with that, although happy to talk to me in detail about their own club’s circumstances, wanted to remain anonymous.
Let us look more specifically at governance. Part of the problem is the almost total lack of recent grassroots men’s coaching or administration experience on some of the key governance bodies. Of the nine members of the RFU board, only one has had experience in the past five years of either coaching or administering an adult men’s 15 side. On the RFU council, only a handful of members have recent experience of the adult men’s game below the national leagues. That means the largest single group of clubs is simply not adequately represented on either of those bodies, which are essential to the health and wellbeing of the game nationally. There is a community game board, although it is very hard to work out who they are, but I very much hope that they are taken from the current administrators and coaches of clubs beneath the national leagues. Their remit and responsibility should be made much clearer to all stakeholders.
Why is the representation so important? Let me give Members a couple of graphic examples. Three seasons ago a league reorganisation was imposed by someone that did not have a rugby union background. The failure is perhaps best demonstrated by the 12-team Counties 1 Surrey/Sussex league where seven teams could go down at the end of the season. If a team was promoted, they could land in one of four different leagues, stretching from Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire to Thurrock in Essex and Bournemouth down on the south coast. This is for amateur clubs, where players have to balance work and family life. With no clear lines of promotion or relegation, club administrators simply cannot plan ahead and nor can the amateur players who are also, as I have mentioned, trying to balance the day job and family commitments. I talked to one club that is already in its fourth league in four seasons, having been relegated during that time just once.
Turning to player welfare, I would like to cite the contentious changes to the tackle height law, which was introduced in July 2023 for the start of the 2023-24 season, just two months later. It allowed almost no time for amateur players to adapt from lifelong tackling habits. It should be deeply concerning to all of us who love the game to learn that no data has ever been made public that acts as a baseline against which to measure success. Perhaps even more worrying still is that data is not routinely collected from across the grassroots game to provide proof as to whether the change is helping in terms of concussions, with only a voluntary submission being rolled out.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about welfare, but there is a wider issue when it comes to rugby union in terms of participation. If the rules are constantly changing and the game is different every time we watch it every season, why would people join if there is a risk of the rules changing and of injury? As a rugby enthusiast, I want to see young people joining because of what it gave me. Does he share the same concerns about the wider implications of not understanding the game being played?
Perran Moon
Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Member for that point. It is absolutely the case that the rules and laws of rugby are constantly being reviewed. I can understand to a certain extent that the game is trying to find a formula that is as attractive as possible to ensure that more and more people come to watch, but it makes it very hard for players, administrators and coaches to manage when there is a constant change in the rules. He makes a very good point—I should say the laws, not the rules.
Anecdotally, some clubs are experiencing an increase in concussions. Worse still, the concussions are more severe than previously, because players are now required to put their heads against knees and hip bones, and the tackle area has been much reduced. Two-player tackles mean head-on-head collisions appear to be increasing. As I say, because we are not routinely collecting data, this is anecdotal, so we must start routinely collecting that data. The situation would be significantly mitigated through competent and sympathetic implementation and governance from people with experience of the grassroots game.
On funding, I was pretty shocked to learn that our grassroots rugby clubs are largely left to fend for themselves while funding is held at the very top of the game. There is a massive financial premium placed on the success of the England rugby team. This is a high risk strategy over which the grassroots game has no control. If the last 14 years taught us anything at all, it is that the theory of trickle-down economics has been debunked. Poorer organisations that are required to value every single pound are far more likely to spend wisely than bloated and complacent functions at the top of the game. The crumbs from the captain’s table approach of providing tickets to England matches as a means of raising revenue is simply not one that provides the financial security that grassroots clubs need.
The only point I will raise about championship clubs is the deeply concerning issue of the covid loans. Over the last five years, championship teams had funding unilaterally cut from £625,000 per championship club, to the current level of £103,000. In plans introduced in the weeks before the first lockdown, a reduction to £288,000 by the beginning of the 2022-23 season was imposed, but a one-year emergency cut to £150,000 was imposed later in 2020 because of the impact of covid.
Championship clubs fully expected and were promised a reinstatement of the pre-covid phased reduction, but that funding has failed to materialise, with authorities claiming a lack of available cash. Championship clubs were not consulted on those changes, despite the severe impact on the chances of survival for many. Having spoken with several championship clubs, there is now a clear and present danger that several of them will not survive.
Competent governance is essential to the safeguarding of the game that we all love. That includes proper consultation and communication; relevant experience at the top of the game; a coherent and transparent funding model; and sympathetic implementation of law changes, which consider the practicalities of the amateur game and the safeguarding of players.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Member makes a powerful point about the impact of the way in which the covid loans were provided to championship clubs. He will be aware that many of those clubs are calling on Ministers to intervene on Sport England to ensure that the repayment schedule for the loans is rescheduled to enable those clubs to achieve viability in the years ahead. Without that, many of them are on the precipice of bankruptcy.
Perran Moon
It is a delicate one, because the governance of English rugby sits largely with the RFU, outside of the Premiership. I am not sure that it is the role of national Government to intervene in areas such as this, if we have competent governance at the top of the RFU. I completely accept the hon. Member’s point—it is a delicate one, but it is a problem that was created at the top of the English game, and it is there that it should be fixed.
I ask the Minister if she agrees with me on three separate areas. First, does she agree that the RFU board should have increased representation from the grassroots game, and that changes to that should be made as soon as possible so that it more closely represents its core membership? Secondly, there is an entry on regular match cards for concussion data to be collected: it should be mandatory for three seasons for it to be completed, so that we can gather the information we need to make a reasoned judgment on whether we have a tackle-height problem. Until we do that, it is my view that we are failing in our duty of care to players, as revisions to the tackle-height law may be required.
Thirdly, an immediate review should be undertaken of the implementation and impact of the covid loan fiasco, with a view to an emergency package of support being made available to championship clubs. Additionally, a multi-year funding pot should be made available to RFU-registered clubs below the top two tiers of English rugby. That should be reviewed annually, and its objective should be to support grassroots clubs in planning and developing their clubs for the long term, rather than the current crumbs from the captain’s table approach with ad-hoc funding plans.
Those of us who love the game across the political spectrum cannot hope to protect our game for the long term, ensure that our grassroots clubs remain at the heart of our communities, and support youngsters coming into the game, without profound and urgent change. I look forward to hearing the views and experiences of other Members here today.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for raising the issue of the state of governance of rugby union in England.
I have some wonderful rugby clubs in the constituency I am proud to represent—Tiverton and Minehead—including Tiverton, Minehead Barbarians and Wiveliscombe, who punch well above their weight. Rugby has been a large fixture throughout my life. My father donned the famous red rose at international level, and also captained both Harlequins and Northampton. It would be a struggle to find a stronger supporter and lover of rugby than me. But it is safe to say that English rugby union has changed a great deal since my father’s playing days. The governance of rugby union in this country is on shaky ground, and although recent success in the Six Nations has provided some immediate buoyancy among the England rugby faithful, it is clear that there are serious structural issues at play, many of which the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned.
At the grassroots level, rugby is really suffering. The community game is collapsing under the weight of insufficient finances. The RFU is not sufficiently supporting the wider rugby ecosystem in this country. Most notably we have seen—and it has been well documented by hon. Members this morning, and will continue to be—English clubs, great and historic rugby institutions, go under in recent years, such as Wasps and London Irish. All that is while C-suite salaries and bonuses have continued to be very handsome indeed. That is financially unsustainable, and a travesty.
We must take note from our competitors because—aside from the fact that I am a bit of a Francophile, and as a Liberal, have a natural orientation towards Europe—the French model is quite clearly geared towards cutting-edge club rugby. In England the national team’s success dominates the story. However, in recent years it has become apparent that the lofty standards of the French national team are a natural by-product of a strong top 14 league. Put simply, they have the best of both worlds, because their strong international outfit is downstream from their thriving club rugby scene. Here in England, we seem to be struggling with both—we are seemingly stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The club rugby model in France has guaranteed a much more stable financial climate, attracting the biggest stars, driving competition, and developing a certain watchability and commercial security that we do not quite have on this side of the channel. It tells us something when some of our brightest prospects—guaranteed mainstays for years to come—have retired from international duty to play in France. I think it is reasonable to suggest that, had circumstances beyond their control been different, most—if not all—would still be representing England.
Change must come. For the good of the game, the governing body must adapt. Right now it is proving to be outmoded; it must move with the times. I associate myself with calls for an independent review into RFU governance, suggesting a need for structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club engagement. If that happens, no one will cheer louder at Twickenham than me.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the MP for a constituency with not one but two rugby union clubs, the governance of English rugby union is of particular importance to me and my constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this debate, and for sharing his expertise, passion and love of the game as well as his beautiful community and constituency.
Rugby plays such a vital role in local communities. It fosters camaraderie, discipline and opportunity for people of all ages and backgrounds. There is nowhere in the country that knows this more than my constituency of Weston-super-Mare, where rugby union is part of the very fabric of our town. As I mentioned, we are lucky enough to have two incredible grassroots rugby union teams in Weston—Weston RFC and Hornets RFC, both of whom do an incredible job of representing our town and supporting our community. Both clubs serve as vital hubs of activity and work, and they both work incredibly hard to use rugby as a vehicle to drive positive change. They help to bring us together, offering spaces where people can belong irrespective of their background or ability. That is particularly true for the young people in the town who, thanks to our two clubs, have the chance to engage and excel in sport, learn teamwork and develop resilience. In fact, Weston Rugby Club was home to the first minis section in England almost 50 years ago.
Both clubs do a lot of work to raise awareness of mental health issues in the town. In particular the Hornets work with the phenomenal charity Talk Club. It is an incredible initiative where people across the town come together every week to talk about their mental health in a safe, secure environment. Steve Barnard leads Talk Club in Weston-super-Mare and North Somerset. I pay tribute to him and his leadership and vision to support men’s mental health and knowing where to find the men—go to where the men are if you want to talk about men’s mental health.
I also pay special tribute to the work of Steve Worrall, former head coach at Weston RFC, who sadly died earlier this year, not long after coming back to the club. Ben Milsom at Hornets RFC is an unsung hero, whose contribution to the club has been invaluable. Both men are absolute legends in Weston-super-Mare.
This debate is about how we ensure that clubs like Weston and Hornets can continue to be pillars of the community in the face of mounting challenges. Many English rugby union clubs are facing huge financial problems. Rising operational costs, economic pressures and unsustainable funding models mean that many clubs are struggling to survive. There is a pressing need to protect and improve the financial sustainability of our clubs to ensure they do not just survive but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, thrive and grow.
While investment at the elite level is crucial in order to grow the game’s wider popularity, we must also prioritise financial support for grassroots clubs. We must see greater transparency and accountability from the RFU to ensure a fairer distribution of resources. It surely cannot be right that RFU executives receive huge bonuses to the tune of millions, while grassroots clubs like Weston and Hornets struggle to get the funds they need to truly thrive and deliver on their potential. Financial support should be targeted to safeguard the future of smaller clubs and the essential work they do for our communities. Initiatives such as improved revenue-sharing mechanisms, enhanced sponsorship opportunities and targeted grassroots funding must be explored.
Rugby has always been a game for the many, not just the few. It thrives when we support clubs at every level. The sustainability of grassroots clubs is not just a matter of sport, but of community and national and regional identity. All stakeholders in English rugby union must work together to build a future where every club, from the grassroots to the top tier, is financially secure and able to flourish for generations to come. If we fail to address these issues, we risk losing not just clubs and the huge benefits they bring to our communities, but the heart and soul of rugby itself.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on raising this issue. He also represents Hayle, where I live and which used to be in the St Ives constituency, where it should be, really. Nevertheless I congratulate him on securing this debate, and on the manner in which he presented the issues. I strongly endorse everything that he said, although I want to take a couple of the points that he made a little further.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I make no great play of my involvement in the game itself, although I have been a very keen sportsman and have played rugby in the past. I did turn out for the Commons and Lords rugby team. I kind of gave that up because I kept playing at weekends, and if you represent a constituency as far from London as mine it becomes a logistical challenge. During my playing days, being a back, I always found it very frustrating because I never quite understood what forwards were there for, other than to grab the ball, wallow around in the mud and grunt a lot, and we had to keep demanding the ball back. That became very frustrating for me. That is about as far as my playing ever got.
As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, rugby is in Cornwall a pre-eminent sport, in which we feel enormous pride. Indeed, the heritage of the game in Cornwall is one that we can look back on—we can also look forward, we hope—with an enormous amount of pride. Despite the deprivation that our constituents experience, the game has been able to flourish. Because of the market area that it covers, at the end of a long, thin peninsula, it has not been able to generate the crowd numbers that perhaps other areas and more populous places can generate. Nevertheless, it has an enormous following in terms of the proportion of the local population who follow the sport. It is vital to the spirit of the local communities and the pride of our local communities. It provides mentors for our young people to emulate and aspire to become themselves. So, it is an enormous source of inspiration in communities that otherwise do not have a great deal available to them, hence its real importance.
The other thing about Cornish rugby is that of course in Cornwall—as the hon. Member who represents Camborne, Redruth and Hayle knows very well—we have an uneasy relationship, in terms of our identity, with English rugby. Certainly some Cornish players have preferred to play for fellow Celtic nations—examples are Andy Reed for Scotland and Colin Laity for Wales— rather than for England. The English connection has sometimes been uneasy, but that is not an issue in itself, or one that I wish to pursue today.
In my constituency, we are very proud to have excellent local clubs: St Ives, St Just and Helston. Many of our players go to play for Hayle, Redruth and Camborne as well. Perhaps pre-eminent among all the clubs in Cornwall is what used to be known as Penzance and Newlyn and is now renowned as the Cornish Pirates. For the last couple of decades, the Cornish Pirates has been a predominant club in championship rugby, competing for promotion on many occasions in recent years, and certainly in the top half of the table of championship rugby. It has set standards of which we feel enormously proud. It has also been the nursery ground for many players who have gone on to great things in English and, indeed, international rugby. The Cornish Pirates is an important case in point in presenting the kind of solutions to local community issues that sports clubs very often do by providing inspiration to young people and something for local people to be encouraged by and to look up to.
The club has had not only strong local backing, but a benefactor, who used to play in his younger days for Penzance and Newlyn. Sir Dicky Evans has been a benefactor and supporter of the club for many years. He is not able to do that now, but certainly for two decades has provided enormous support for the club.
I want to bring the debate back to the risk posed to a large number of clubs, including the Cornish Pirates, by the way in which too much resource is being siphoned into premiership rugby, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth described, with the result that all other tiers of rugby are suffering. The precipitous way in which decisions have been made in recent years about the covid loan, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, has created an unexpected debt for many clubs, and the Cornish Pirates is certainly not immune from that. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that—the Minister very kindly responded to me—because the impact of the covid debt is very significant indeed, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach to it, or intervene with Sport England to look at ways to reprofile those loans.
If the Cornish Pirates were to fold tomorrow, the club has no significant assets of its own and does not own its own ground, even though it does not have many debts. I fear there could be significant consequences if it falls into significant debt now as a result of the covid loan. Reprofiling that loan would be a win-win for everybody: not only would that great club continue, but the debt would in time be repaid. I hope Ministers look at this issue much more closely. I hope they do not simply stand aside and keep this thing at arm’s length, but intervene to support such clubs.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this really important debate. His important work as a rugby coach and a key stakeholder within his community is to be commended. I come from a football and track and field background, but I have always respected rugby: the organisation of the clubs, what the sport does to the community and how it empowers young people. Coming from my background, I have always had significant respect for that community.
I am extremely proud to be here to talk about grassroots rugby. In my community, we have some strong local rugby clubs, including Westcliff, Southend rugby football club and Rochford Hundred rugby club, which I want to talk about today. Rochford Hundred has a positive impact across Southend and Rochford. I have had the pleasure of meeting Ray Stephenson, the president of the club, and Steve Maguire, the chairman. When I have been down to see the team in action on club days, I have noticed how collegiate it is and how many people in the community come together across various age groups—young and old, male and female. That is a true representation of what a sporting club does and what it means to a community. I cannot commend enough the passion and enthusiasm that these guys have shown in how they run the club and have faced the challenges that they have conveyed to me, so I want to say a massive thank you to those two gentlemen for their hard work.
Not wanting to remain anonymous, Rochford Hundred has brought to my attention its deep concerns about the disconnect between the RFU, community clubs and the council. As hon. Members will have seen, the RFU chief executive received a sizeable bonus of £353,000 as part of an executive-approved long-term incentive plan, on top of their basic salary of £742,000. However, the RFU also suffered a loss and had to make redundancies so, on the face of it, that organisation is not flush with cash. Clubs such as Rochford Hundred continue to struggle during difficult times. Had the clubs and the council had more oversight, there would have been sufficient checks and balances to stop that decision. This is just one example where the RFU executive has made decisions that do not align with or support grassroots rugby clubs like Rochford Hundred. I urge the Minister to review the governance structures of the RFU, so that it is compliant with the statutory bodies that regulate it, and better support grassroots rugby clubs.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
If you were to come to Hinckley to watch the rugby, Sir Desmond, I would suggest going to the Union Inn. When you walk in, especially given it is Six Nations weekend, you will see lots of rugby quotes along the top of the room. The first that catches my eye is:
“The relationship between the Welsh and the English is based on trust and understanding. They don’t trust us and we don’t understand them.”
I am able to say that because I am half-Welsh and half-English. The fight that will ensue this weekend will be interesting.
I should declare an interest: until recently, my brother was the sports and exercise doctor for Bath Rugby and had been there for many years. I should also declare that my father is a Bath Rugby season ticket holder. I too am a Bath Rugby fan, which makes it all the more difficult to represent a constituency in Leicestershire—especially during the pandemic, when I was hit with 150 emails from Leicester Tigers fans asking for support. What I love about rugby union is being able to write back to those constituents and say, “I will give you support, provided that Bath are above you in the table when it comes forward.” I am pleased that at this time Bath is sitting pretty at the top of the premiership, above Leicester. Long may that continue.
This Saturday, I am heading to Hinckley rugby club, which is a fantastic community club and a great feeder for some of the great players we have seen in Leicester and also in England colours. The club has done an incredible job of bringing multi-sports places together. That is a testament given the travesties we have seen with the pandemic and what it has done to the sport.
It becomes more personal and professional as a MP, given that Wasps was just down the road from me. As has been mentioned, we have lost Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and the Jersey Reds. The question is why. What is going on? As has rightly been talked about, this storm has been brewing for a while. It is a combination of how to grow the game; player welfare; where the revenue comes from; who will buy clubs, and in the case of Worcester, why they have bought it and what they will do with it; and what the future of our game will be.
In the light of the storm that has been brewing, I asked the Government in December whether they would conduct a review into the governance and finances of rugby. The Minister answered that, while rugby union
“has a vital role to play in our national identity”,
there was no intention
“to conduct a review into the finances or governance of rugby union at this time.”
Fast forward to this year and, on 9 January, the BBC reported on grassroots representatives of rugby calling for a petition to sack the RFU board chief executive. According to the BBC article, this resulted from concerns about the £1.1 million compensation package for the chief executive, record financial losses for the governing body, job losses, perceived leadership failings to save liquidated clubs such as London Irish, Wasps, Worcester and the Jersey Reds, the calamitous roll-out of new rules on tackle height in 2023, money spent paying out contracts to fire England coaches, and a climate of lost confidence and trust from thousands of volunteers in the game.
The RFU initially rejected the calls for a summit meeting because the no-confidence petition lacked the required signatures, but it was later reported that a special general meeting will take place on 27 March. Strikingly, I attended a similar debate last week about football governance. When the Minister spoke—I have picked out a few bits—she said:
“Despite bigger revenues than ever coming into the game, too many loyal fans have had their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and ultimately the worry that their cherished clubs might be lost.”
She went on to say:
“Being an appropriate owner means that club custodians must be suitable; we are protecting fans from irresponsible owners. Having a sensible business plan means that clubs will need clear financial plans, with detail on risk management and resource plans for owners. Having proper engagement with fans on key issues means setting a minimum standard for fan engagement. We are ensuring protections on changes to club crests, home kit and club names and giving fans a voice in the day-to-day running of their club.
Clubs will need a licence to play. They will not be able to join closed-shop breakaway leagues or move around without proper consultation.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 228WH-229WH.]
If anything, the RFU is seemingly in an even more precarious position than our football colleagues. I am not trying to pit one against the other; I am simply saying that there is a similarity when it comes to managing sport.
If Members do not believe me, they only have to look at the proposals by an American company for a touring premiership or touring clubs. A breakaway league is a serious proposition. What would happen then to the domestic game? What would happen to the regional game, including the competitions across Europe? How would that fit? I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am simply saying these are the realities. People are trying to make sport profitable, but at what detriment? If it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?
There is an argument for looking into what is going on. It seems like the grassroots do not trust or understand the chief executive and the RFU team, and vice versa. Therefore, it seems paramount that the Government ask for a review of the governance and finances to ensure that the game we all love in this room is on a sustainable footing.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this important debate. It has been a pleasure to hear the passion across the room for this wonderful sport. Few activities have the power to bring people and communities together in the way that rugby can. It instils passion, pride, respect, teamwork and determination, bringing people together from all different walks of life. It teaches young people that, when they persevere, they can achieve so much more as a team than they can alone. It is also a huge contributor to the UK economy. England Rugby estimates its value to be around £20.3 billion during 2023-24, and that includes £770 million to help people to improve their physical and mental health, and for community activities, crime reduction and economic growth more generally. It is an important part of our economy as well as our communities.
Saturday afternoons during the Five and latterly Six Nations were protected time in my household growing up, often with one match being shown on the television while another fixture was simultaneously listened to on the radio. The tournament is part of our national story—a celebration of the United Kingdom through passionate but good-natured competition between each of its constituent parts—but watching the likes of Maro Itoje, Dafydd Jenkins, Sione Tuipulotu, or Caelan Doris will not be possible if the talent pipeline from the school playing field or the community club to Twickenham, Murrayfield, the Principality or Aviva stadiums is not secured.
That talent pipeline was fostered through the years when rugby union was an amateur game—a far cry from other sports that, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) hinted, are run as franchises or closed shops for shareholders, rather than for fans and those playing for the sheer love of the game. However, the concern of many amateur clubs across the country is that money that is generated at elite levels is not filtering down to community clubs, leaving those community clubs struggling to invest in future talent and to maintain ageing clubhouses or well-used pitches.
Many of us will have an active rugby club in our communities, backed up by dedicated volunteers, and it has been a joy to hear about some of them this morning. In my constituency, Belper rugby club is well loved by local people and has 250 playing members aged five to 55. I am particularly pleased that local businesses have thrown their support behind the club so that it can continue to bring people together through the power of sport. Morrisons kindly donated £5,500 to the club to part fund the excavation and installation of approximately 250 metres of filter drains along the length of the pitches to mitigate flooding, which is a big local issue. Morrisons said:
“We recognise the importance of the rugby club to the local community, and we understand the impact the flooding has caused. We hope that these works will have a positive effect and mitigate future flooding.”
I thank Morrisons for its support.
Belper rugby club is keen to see more professional input at community level. It has talked to my office about a New Zealand model, where professionals go into schools in the community to support the development of the grassroots game. I strongly support that and urge the Minister to throw her weight behind the proposal in her engagement with rugby’s leaders.
I am pleased that the new Government committed in their manifesto to get more children active by protecting time for physical education in schools and supporting the role of grassroots clubs in expanding access to sport. People’s enjoyment of rugby will be further enhanced by the Government’s commitment to putting fans back at the heart of sporting events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.
As the Government do their bit to bring communities together and support people’s health and wellbeing through sport as part of their plan for change, I encourage all rugby stakeholders to do whatever they can to get behind the grassroots game and fund it appropriately. If we want to see tomorrow’s Will Carling or J. P. R. Williams leading the sport and inspiring the next generation, rugby’s leaders must ensure that the spoils of the elite game are shared with community clubs. Failure to do so would mean the sport faces an existential threat, and we would all be the poorer for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for leading today’s debate. It is fantastic to listen to Members’ representations on the governance of English rugby union. The hon. Gentleman has close ties with the game, and I think he has been a poacher and a gamekeeper, both a referee and a player—well done.
It is important that we do more to protect local sport and listen to local perspectives. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) referred to the ambitions of Bath and Leicester. I have a Leicester Tigers rugby shirt. I was given it many years ago. Believe it or not, I sent away for a Leicester City football shirt and received a Leicester Tigers one. I was not quite sure—I knew the colour scheme was not quite right. I still treasure it, even though it was not what I originally wished to have.
There is an ongoing debate in England about how rugby clubs are regulated and sustained. The game has faced financial challenges, and some clubs in England have gone into administration or have been on the brink of doing so. We must ensure that provisions are in place so that does not occur.
Rugby union in Northern Ireland is governed by Ulster Rugby, which has responsibility for the sport’s oversight and development. It is doing a fairly good job, and I give it credit for its work. Ulster Rugby is responsible for all levels of rugby in Northern Ireland, from schools and the grassroots level to professional rugby.
I went to boarding school for five years, and the school game was rugby. We could not play football—well, we could play football, but we had to play it down the bottom, near the river, where nobody could see. That was the way it was. It was a long time ago, in the ’60s and early ’70s. It is probably very different today, and pupils can probably play football or any other sport they want. Rugby was the game. I played out-half or wing forward, and I enjoyed it. It is quite a physical game, and maybe that was the attraction.
Ulster Rugby oversees the Ulster rugby team, which competes in the United Rugby Championship and European competitions such as the champions cup. Rugby is incredibly popular in Northern Ireland, and its following is incredible. It is promoted through schools and clubs across Northern Ireland. So many schools in my constituency play rugby regularly—High School Ballynahinch, in particular, and Regent House school have done incredibly well in the schools competition and still play great games of rugby. Glastry college is another example, and I sit on its board of governors. Although it was not originally a rugby school, a couple of teachers came in and rugby has become one of the college’s games.
We have Ballynahinch rugby football club and Ards rugby football club, and what they do for the participation of children and people of all ages is ginormous. Some 300 children take part in rugby every Saturday morning, and sometimes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays too. Women’s rugby is also promoted, and it is gathering speed in Northern Ireland. The Ulster schools’ cup fosters competition for so many young men, and their love for rugby stays with them all their lives. Northern Ireland’s many rugby league clubs are enjoyed by people of all ages, and Ulster Rugby’s women’s team is going from strength to strength, which is wonderful and tells us that the sport is reaching beyond its previous parameters.
As with any sport, finances are an issue. There are many cases where the sport’s financial sustainability has been brought into question, and it is clear that effective regulation is needed to protect the clubs, the players and the supporters, and to ensure the future success of rugby unions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must ensure that, for all rugby unions, there is an even spread of finances from the top tier of United Kingdom rugby right down to local teams and schools. There must be better regulation and support to ensure that we do not witness more well-known clubs going into administration.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and other hon. Members have called on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to engage further with counterparts across the United Kingdom. I always ask these questions of Ministers, but I ask because it is important to do so. We want to continue the tradition of great rugby in Northern Ireland, but this debate has raised some of the challenges to rugby and what needs to be done. Does the Minister intend to engage with Gordon Lyons, the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, to relay the outcomes of our discussions so that we can go forward together?
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the hon. Member who, as always, is making a fantastic speech. He is always a champion for the Union, and rugby union is also suffering in Wales and Scotland. Does he have a view on whether we should have a sit-down discussion? Rugby union is devolved, but it is important to ensure sustainability across all four nations so that there is an abundance for future generations.
Jim Shannon
Rugby is loved everywhere, across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is unfortunate that Ireland did not do better against the French on Saturday. It was a bad game, but we look forward to better games ahead. The hon. Member is right that we need to work together to share those experiences.
Again, will the Minister engage with the Minister in Northern Ireland on the proposals and recommendations raised by this debate so that we can all learn together? Our love for the game brings us all together, and as we love the game, we want to make it better for everyone.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate. He speaks with great passion and knowledge, and I commend his recommendations.
Nothing can beat rugby as a gladiatorial spectacle, from the high-scoring, ping-pong, side-to-side and end-to-end champagne rugby played in the sunshine, to the grinding, no-tries, mud-fest battles for the purists only. The genius playmaker, able to see and exploit a gap for a game-changing individual try. The 16 phases of pick-and-go forwards grinding out the inches—or doing the hard yards, as I would describe it. The last-minute drop goal that wins or loses a match. Rugby is a game of wonder and joy. It is a sport built on discipline, respect and unity, which defines the game at every level, from local grassroots clubs to the highest of international competitions.
While I would love to spend some time lauding my own playing abilities, I am afraid there is too much evidence to the contrary. As a lifelong fan, I watch as many matches as my new schedule allows. And every weekend I take my son to play at one of our brilliant clubs in West Dorset, because it is not just a game but a community, and it is enjoyed by thousands up and down the country every weekend.
Rugby union, which according to legend was born in 1823 when William Webb Ellis picked up a ball at Rugby school, is one of Britain’s finest exports, and it is important to so many, not just in the UK but around the world. In the English premiership, we have one of the best and most competitive leagues in the world, and if the Chair will allow me a moment of self-indulgence, it is great to see my club, Bath, back at the top of the league, where it belongs. If the Chair will allow me a further moment of indulgence, I will annoy my political researcher by saying it is great to see Northampton so far down the league.
This year, we are proud to host the women’s rugby world cup, which will be a fantastic celebration of sport and an opportunity to see the Red Roses hopefully triumph. The growth of the women’s game is an extraordinary success story, with record-breaking attendance and a surge of participation. The Red Roses’ domination on the international stage, with their groundbreaking winning streak, has inspired a new generation of players and showcased the strength of women’s rugby. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Impact ’25 funds from the Government, with £28 million of investment to support England hosting the 2025 rugby world cup, including £14 million of legacy funding, which is needed to grow the women’s grassroots game.
However, while there is much to celebrate on the pitch, English rugby also faces a governance crisis off it. The financial state of the game is deeply troubling. Since rugby in England turned professional in 1995, the business model has remained unsustainable. Many premiership clubs operate at a loss, dependent on wealthy owners who can withdraw their funding at any moment, leaving clubs in financial ruin. In 2023, we saw the historic and legendary clubs of Wasps and London Irish collapse, as well as Worcester. The consequences have been devastating. Players and staff lost their livelihoods, and fans lost their beloved teams. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the time called it
“a stain on the reputation of the RFU”.
Despite these failings, successive Governments have taken a hands-off approach, hiding behind the excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body and allowing financial mismanagement to continue unchecked. The RFU receives significant public funding. Since 2020, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided loans through the sports survival package amounting to more than £123 million for premiership and championship clubs, with little oversight of how that money is used. Worcester received the largest loan, borrowing £15.7 million, but its administrators repaid just £9.8 million. Wasps’ administrators returned just £300,000 of its £14.1 million loan, and London Irish is yet to repay any of the £11.8 million that it received. Across the English game, we know that a staggering £30 million of these loans remains uncovered, with a further £11 million in unpaid interest. The RFU itself posted a record operating loss of more than £40 million last year and made more than 40 staff redundant while, as has already been mentioned, its executives awarded themselves £1.3 million in bonuses. How do the Government justify such recklessness when clubs are struggling to survive?
Premiership clubs collectively lost £30.5 million in 2022-23, and have net debts in excess of £300 million. Despite some financial reforms and a new £3.3 million per club funding deal, concerns over clubs’ sustainability persist. Seven out of 10 clubs are financially insolvent, surviving only on owner handouts. Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it was only a matter of time until another premiership club goes bust.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech about the financial impact, but with all these clubs it is about the fans and the jobs that go out into the community. Does he agree that when we saw this situation in football, we had the fan-led review? Would it not therefore be wise for the Government to consider doing something similar in rugby? By having a look, they could lift the stones, pull the cover back and see what is actually going on with the state of rugby union in England.
Edward Morello
I 100% agree with the hon. Member. It is incredibly important that the Government step in and start looking at the governance of the game, otherwise there will not be a game to govern.
Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it is only a matter of time before another premiership club goes bust. That is an appalling state of affairs for a sport that should be thriving, and it has been confirmed that London Irish will seek a place in the United Rugby Championship. A team’s decision to prioritise the URC over the premiership serves as a damning indictment of the mismanagement within the premiership and the broader state of our amazing sport. If a normal business operated in that way, it would have been restructured years ago.
I have received responses from the Government stating that the governance of rugby union is a matter for the RFU, referring to the RFU and Sport England as their arm’s length bodies. Yet, despite the substantial public funding it receives, the RFU appears to operate with little oversight or accountability to the Government. If a private business was in receipt of that much taxpayers’ money, there would be demands for a public inquiry.
We have also seen injustices in the league system, as has been outlined. The championship contains strong clubs such as Ealing Trailfinders, which have proved their quality by excelling in the premiership cup. Yet, due to outdated capacity rules, they are denied promotion, while some premiership clubs fail to sell out their stadiums week after week. The entire system must be reformed to reward financial prudence and on-field performance rather than the entrenched and unfair status quo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) has already outlined the alarming fact that rugby’s biggest stars are leaving for more lucrative contracts abroad. The loss of players such as Courtney Lawes to the French second division is a damning indictment of our commercial model. The RFU must do more to retain our talent and create a financially competitive environment.
At the same time, we face the threat of losing the Six Nations from free-to-air television. The proposed £100 million deal to move the tournament behind a paywall would be disastrous for the sport and net the competition just £10 million more than the existing deal. A TNT Sports subscription costs up to £30 a month, pricing out many fans and reducing viewership. The Government must ensure that the Six Nations remains free to air, to inspire the next generation of players and supporters.
Despite these challenges, rugby’s future can be bright. The upcoming women’s rugby world cup will showcase the extraordinary growth of the women’s game, with record-breaking ticket sales at Twickenham. Research in Scotland has shown that grassroots rugby delivers an economic benefit of at least £159 million a year, with a social return of £7.71 for every £1 spent. Investing in grassroots is not just morally right, but economically sound, yet funding cuts, declining participation and referee shortages have led to nearly 300 match walkovers in a single season.
The RFU must do more to support community clubs, which are the bedrock of the sport. The RFU’s leadership has lost the confidence of both grassroots and professional rugby stakeholders due to financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency. The Liberal Democrats call for an independent review of the RFU’s governance, with structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club representation. A more democratic system, or even an external regulatory body, would restore trust and stability to the game. It is time for the Government to step in. The governance of English rugby is at a crossroads. The RFU must address the concerns of clubs and stakeholders to ensure the sport’s long-term sustainability. The Government must ensure that public money is spent wisely and intervene when financial mismanagement threatens the integrity of the game.
The travesty of this mismanagement of the game is not just its current state; it is the missed opportunity—the failure to realise the premiership as a premium global product, create superstars of our best players, fill stadiums, grow participation and monetise the game. Rugby is a national asset. We cannot allow it to be undermined by poor governance. The passion of players, coaches and fans remains unwavering. However, unless decisive action is taken, we risk further financial crisis and erosion of the game we love. The excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body cannot be sanctioned any longer. We can argue over whether the RFU deserves a red or a yellow card, but I hope we can all agree that it is time for an off-field review.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate.
Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community.
Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months.
I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport.
Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead.
First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years.
The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage
“a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.”
I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that.
We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.
Edward Morello
I have also heard the RFU explain its four-year business plan. It is nearly impossible to imagine a business running on a four-year plan under which it makes a loss three years out of four. Given how long the RFU has been in charge of the game, I find it staggering that it has not found a way to create a business plan with a more even distribution of income and outgoings. If it is ever going to get on to a sustainable footing and provide cash to the game, it needs to find a way to be profitable in every single year.
Mr French
I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead.
Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure.
The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows.
The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish.
The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup.
From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that.
I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address.
Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility?
What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be responding to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing it. He also represents Hayle, as I understand, and he speaks with great experience on this issue.
Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), I start by saying that rugby—both union and league—makes a huge contribution to our country. I congratulate England and Scotland on their success in the men’s Six Nations this weekend, and my commiserations go to Wales and Ireland on their hard-fought defeats. The Six Nations is a jewel in the crown of international rugby union. As we approach the last weekend of the Six Nations, I wish all the home nations every success.
Besides the international level, professional and grassroots rugby clubs are often at the heart of communities. It is right that we take a moment to celebrate the sport and the volunteers who keep clubs running across the country. The huge contribution they make has been outlined by Members across the Chamber today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who spoke about the heritage of the game and the importance of aspiration for young people.
I will discuss some of the concerns that have been raised about the governance of rugby union, in particular in the context of grassroots rugby, which is how my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth framed his opening contribution. Good governance is an important bedrock on which the sport sector stands, and I have been pleased to see steps taken in recent years to address governance issues in the sector.
Governance is vital to ensuring transparency, accountability and fairness in the sport and physical activity sector. The revised code for sports governance sets out the levels of transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability and integrity that are required from sporting governing bodies—including the RFU—that seek and are in receipt of DCMS and national lottery funding from UK Sport and Sport England. The code has proved successful in setting clear expectations around good governance and diversity. Indeed, 88% of organisations funded by Sport England and UK Sport have said that the code has tightened their governance.
Turning to the governance of rugby union specifically, I am aware of some of the recent challenges that the sport has faced. I met with the RFU and Premiership Rugby in early November to discuss the future of the sport. It was valuable to hear about the actions that the sport is taking to address some of the challenges that have been discussed today. I am committed to continuing to work with the sport to support its long-term financial sustainability. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about devolved Governments. I am hoping to visit all the devolved Governments in the coming weeks, so I will reach out to him when I do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth rightly raises the importance of good governance in the sport at all levels, and he specifically raised grassroots representation on the RFU board. I note that there is a board member with responsibility for the community game, and he is one of the nine representatives on the board. I am not able to comment more specifically on the board arrangements of the RFU, as that is a matter for them, but I note the concerns that my hon. Friend has outlined, and I am sure that the RFU will have heard the argument for greater grassroots representation.
Central to good governance is the effective communication between a governing body, its members and grassroots club. It is imperative to a healthy sport. It does, however, mean suitable independence of decision making on any publicly funded board. I am aware that, after a period of engagement between the RFU and grassroots clubs, the RFU has said that it will take action to improve communications with the rest of the sport, including by proactively communicating and seeking input from members on key issues. The shadow Minister spoke in detail about that, so I will not repeat him, but the points he made were correct and welcome. I welcome this work and encourage the RFU to continue to focus on engagement with its community and grassroots clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth raised the issue of tackle height in the community game. The safety and wellbeing of everyone taking part in the sport is paramount. The Government understand that there are ongoing concerns about this important issue. National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of their sports. Although DCMS cannot comment on individual cases, we do expect NGBs to make the health and safety of players their top priority.
I understand that the RFU council approved lowering tackle height in community rugby in England after the RFU analysed other international case studies, including from South Africa, New Zealand and France, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point that changes to rules, particularly around tackle height, must be based on the best possible evidence. I will take away his specific question about concussion data on match day cards. The Government will continue to advocate for sports to consider how safety can be best approached, but I am sure that the RFU will have heard my hon. Friend’s specific points today.
The first national guidance for concussion in grassroots sport was introduced in 2023, and was developed by international experts on concussion and acquired brain injury to better identify, manage and prevent the issue. We continue to encourage national governing bodies to adapt the guidance to their own sport where appropriate. We recognise the important work done recently on UK-wide grassroots sport concussion guidelines, which were produced to support sports, players and parents across the country. The Government will continue to prioritise participant safety to ensure that everyone can take part in sport as safely as possible.
I recognise the financial difficulties faced by many clubs involved in rugby union. I recognise the positive contribution that clubs such as the Cornish Pirates RFC and many others make through the community and school sports programme, which the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned. During the pandemic, organisations could apply to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for loans through the sport survival package to support the sector. Those loans were provided to ensure the survival of clubs during the pandemic, but it remains the clubs’ responsibility to ensure the longer-term sustainability of their funding.
The Government monitor the financial situation of rugby union closely, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayer. That includes the recovery of moneys loaned during the SSP.
Andrew George
Surely the Minister understands that if a club such as the Cornish Pirates were to fold, that responsibility to the taxpayer would not be served, because that debt would be unpaid, so it is far better for her to intervene and assist those clubs to overcome that problem.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that, and that is why the Government continue to monitor the situation. I am not able to comment on the repayments of individual borrowers or leagues, given the commercial sensitivity, but we encourage any SSP borrower with concerns about repayments to speak to the Sport England team dedicated to managing the loans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth raised concerns about the levels of funding from the RFU to grassroots rugby clubs. I appreciate that some rugby union clubs, and many members and fans, feel that grassroots funding is not sufficient. The Government recognise the importance and value that a financially sustainable rugby pyramid offers to players, fans and the wider sporting community. Following the collapse of several premiership clubs in 2022 and 2023, the previous Government appointed two independent advisers to produce a plan to stabilise rugby union. The independent advisers worked with the RFU, the premiership and the championship on the Men’s Professional Game Partnership, and we welcome the progress made on a funding framework for the future of the sport.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister is right that the last Government appointed two people to look at this issue, but we are three years on and still the clouds are coming. Will she commit to a review of the finances and governance, a bit like the fan-led review, to ensure transparency and open up this debate so that the fans, the volunteers, the players and the Executive can all see the state of play? We as a country can then make a judgment about the best way to handle that.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of and interest in this subject. I noted that he quoted extensively from my speech on the Football Governance Bill. I gently remind him that we have been in many a debate together in which he has been less than enthusiastic about that piece of legislation. If he is now in favour of a similar thing for rugby—
Stephanie Peacock
He says “a fan-led review” from a sedentary position. I suggest that he speaks to his leader, who has obviously U-turned on football governance. As I said in my written answer, my Department does not intend to conduct a review at this time, but we keep everything under review. I will now make some progress.
The RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the governance of the sport at all levels, including how it distributes funding. I understand that it has now committed to £120 million to support grassroots rugby over four years. It is worth noting that it has said that it is exploring offering sizeable loans to clubs for critical projects, including infrastructure, to support the financial sustainability of grassroots clubs for the long term. Supporting grassroots sport, including local rugby clubs, is a key priority for this Government, and that is why we are investing in grassroots sport. The DCMS provides the majority of funding for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body, Sport England, which annually invests more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money to support people to get active.
Sport England has awarded the RFU, the governing body for rugby in England, £13 million for the period 2022 to 2027, as one of Sport England’s long-term system partners, to invest in community rugby initiatives that will benefit everyone. We continue to work with the RFU, representatives of premiership and championship clubs and the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby union.
That support for grassroots rugby union, as well as other grassroots sport, is vital to helping people get active. Sport and physical activity are central to delivering the Government’s health mission, which is why we are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter their age, background or ability, has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities.
In addition to men’s rugby, we should celebrate the growth of women’s rugby union in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth acknowledged how far the women’s game has come. I am delighted that England will be hosting the 10th edition of the women’s rugby world cup this year between August and September. The tournament provides a significant opportunity to showcase women’s rugby, provide a world stage for female athletes and drive the visibility of the women’s game.
In January, I met with the chief executive officer of the women’s rugby world cup to understand the long-term impact of hosting this exciting event. The record-breaking ticket sales, which already top 220,000—double those sold at the previous tournament—highlight the massive appetite for women’s sporting events in this country. The tournament’s Impact ’25 programme has already had a transformational impact in cementing rugby as a game for all, with funding being allocated to 850 clubs across the country.
This debate has been a fantastic opportunity to highlight the contribution that rugby makes across our country. Some real questions and concerns have been raised, but I hope that, through collaboration and rebuilding faith, the RFU will listen and move forward. I thank all hon. Members for taking part.
Perran Moon
First, I thank you, Sir Desmond, for your expert chairmanship of this debate; it has been a sight for sore eyes. I only have a couple of minutes, so I would also like to quickly thank the hon. Members who have contributed.
I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who mentioned the importance of Cornish rugby to Cornish society, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who referenced the French model, which we should be looking at, focusing on that kind of adapt-or-die approach. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who talked about the importance of mental health to our communities, and mentioned Talk Club; he also referenced financial sustainability, on which so much of what we have talked about is based.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) mentioned Rochford Hundred rugby club and the passion there is there. I wish the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) good luck with his Bath-Tigers dilemma—I cannot really help him with that one. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) talked about the talent pipeline, and that is why we need to invest in these grassroots clubs: to ensure that talent is coming through that pipeline.
The omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Ulster Rugby, women’s rugby and the lessons to be learned there. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) gave us an important insight into the history of rugby, as well as the financial challenges and why we need to look at this issue in much more detail.
We were doing so well in making the debate apolitical until the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), stood up, but I guess that is his job. I agree with him that we have to focus on the community side and ensure that it is open to all.
I thank the Minister for responding directly and focusing on the grassroots game. I am conscious that hon. Members needed to talk about their local clubs as well as the higher-level clubs, and I was thankful that the Minister talked specifically about the grassroots.
My view, for what it is worth, is that this is our game, and our mess; it is for us to sort out, not for Government to take control. Government can express a view, but I am hopeful that we can sort out our problems within the confines of the game itself and ensure that grassroots rugby remains on a stable footing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the governance of English rugby union.
Local Government: Nolan Principles
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Alberto Costa to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up,.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Nolan Principles in local government.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This year marks the 30-year anniversary of the Nolan principles, which are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those seven principles embody everything that we, as elected representatives, should strive for on behalf of our constituents. They are the guiding principles for anyone in elected office.
MPs and elected representatives at all levels of local government are overwhelmingly public-spirited and dedicated people who always embody the Nolan principles in their work. Having served on the Privileges and Standards Committees for the last five years, which I am honoured to now chair, I have seen at first hand that elected representatives do, at times, sadly fall short of the principles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Does he agree that for most honourable people, the desire to live up to the highest standards of the Nolan principles is inherent? For people who do not live by those principles, however, there must be more than a suggestion—indeed, there must be a requirement—to stand by them.
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome intervention, with which I entirely agree. Not only should publicly elected councillors—at parish, town, local authority, district and county level—be obliged to follow those principles but, importantly, a code of conduct developed and underpinned by those principles should have teeth. What he is ultimately saying is that there must be appropriate sanctions, as there are for us as Members of this House.
For some of those Members who fall short, sometimes those are cases of minor lapses—moments of frustration or poor judgment—while other times they are severe errors, with devastating consequences for colleagues, staff and the reputation of elected office. Such errors are not unique to elected representatives; to err is human, and no human being is without flaws. That said, it is right that elected representatives, while undertaking their public duties, are held to a higher bar. That is not about their private lives, but about the work that we, and local authority councillors, do in the course of our public duties.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on the Nolan principles, which I have been very interested in for a long time, working in public service. In a digital-first world, with so much of our lives documented and undertaken online, does he agree that there is a greater necessity for a reimagination of the Nolan principles?
Alberto Costa
That is an interesting point. I must confess that I have not considered it, so I would welcome any further information or a further briefing from the hon. Member on what he means by that, particularly in my role as Chair of the Standards Committee.
The Nolan principles must ensure that elected representatives are held to account properly, at every level of local government. In Labour’s plan for local government reorganisation and a new structure, the way that standards are dealt with must not be neglected. I hope that the Minister will say a few words on local government reorganisation, and how he thinks the Nolan principles and any code of conduct might underpin that.
I think we can all agree that the current regime is failing. Issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment in local government—parish, town, county and district—have become worse. I know of parish councillors in my constituency whose lives have been made a misery through months and, in many cases, years of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment from fellow councillors.
In Leicestershire, one instance of constant harassment and relentless, vexatious complaints resulted in a parish council officer dramatically resigning during a parish council meeting. I have no doubt that hon. Members have witnessed or heard similar stories in their constituencies. Those bad apples make up only a small minority of councillors but even so, according to a 2017 report by the Society of Local Council Clerks,
“15% of parish councils experience serious behaviour issues… 5% are effectively dysfunctional as a result of them.”
So where does the current regime fall short? First, there is no clear definition of bullying or harassment in the Localism Act 2011, which leaves it to monitoring officers to interpret vague codes of conduct inconsistently. What is serious in one district area is dismissed in another. Town and parish councils have no internal mechanism to investigate breaches of conduct. At the same time, principal authorities are also powerless to enforce meaningful sanctions, except in cases serious enough for criminal referral.
The 2018 Ledbury town council case exposed a major flaw in the system. The council was forced to pay more than £200,000 in legal fees for trying to sanction a councillor through an internal grievance process. That highlighted a fundamental problem: parish councils lack the power to act independently, while principal authorities have no real enforcement mechanisms. Accountability falls into limbo unless there is clear criminal conduct. My speech is not about criminal conduct; it is about the issues that we as Members of this House are familiar with—bullying, sexual misconduct, harassment and the like.
If the public were able to hold rogue councillors—the minority—to account properly at the ballot box, I would be less concerned, but the gaps in legislation are made worse by the democratic deficit, certainly at the parish level, where elections often lack enough willing candidates to ensure true accountability. In the May 2015 elections, for example, only 20% of eligible parishes contested their vacancies. The ballot box rarely holds councillors to account, and even if it does, it can often be too late.
We know that accountability problems will be more pronounced in areas that have a unitary authority, which is the direction of travel under this Government, as parishes may be given even greater powers due to the abolition of district councils. I hope that the Minister can comment on what consideration the Government are giving to that specific point or, if he is unaware, that he will write to me after the debate.
For now, I encourage the Government to consider the following steps to strengthen accountability, and to protect town and parish councillors and those who work for town and parish councils. First, I suggest amending section 27(3) of the Localism Act 2011 to give a clear definition of bullying that explicitly covers persistent verbal abuse, intimidation or behaviour that causes significant distress to other parish or town councillors or those who work for parish or town councils. That would give monitoring officers of principal authorities a firmer basis on which to act, and would set a threshold for escalation, distinguishing heated debate from harassment.
The next step would be to mandate standards committees in all principal authorities, which would be tasked with impartial investigations, deciding on allegations and imposing sanctions. Those committees, supported by truly independent persons, would bring consistency, credibility and impartiality into an appropriate disciplinary system. Here in the House of Commons, as part of the Committee that I chair, we have seven lay members alongside seven Members of Parliament, and as the Chair, I do not have a vote other than in the event of a tie. That means that the seven lay members provide the impartiality that the House wants when disciplining its own Members.
Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)
The Nolan principles also apply to officers working in the public sector. I am a regional mayor, as well as a Member. I am aware that a regional mayor in the east of England is currently talking with a chief constable about officers under the previous mayor making decisions that should have been made by politicians—in other words, the normal rules and policies seemingly being circumvented.
It troubles me that the interim officers who work for local authorities or regional authorities move on quite quickly. They do not stay very long, and if something questionable is subsequently found, they are not bound to take part in any inquiry. That means that the Nolan principles can be completely circumvented; it drives a coach and horses through the good principles. I agree with everything that the hon. Member has said so far, but does he think there should there be a special circumstance or a modification to the rules to allow those officers, who keep moving around and carry on working in local government, to be held to account?
I also ask the Minister what the Government will do to make sure, where questionable things have happened, that the local authorities to which those interim officers go are alerted about that. Those local authorities should know that irregularities have taken place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. Can we have shorter interventions in future?
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Member for his welcome intervention, which highlights another issue that I am not entirely familiar with. Although this debate is concerned with elected officials, he rightly asks about what happens if people charged with the oversight of the Nolan principles as independent officers move on to other jurisdictions. There is, of course, the contract of employment that underpins the individual’s duties, but there may well be a lacuna in that area. Again, I would welcome the hon. Member writing to me with a further briefing so that I can ascertain whether there is a link to ensure that that would not damage the mechanism that I am proposing to the Minister, which is for independent officers to have more appropriate oversight.
As I have indicated, mandating in all principal authorities standards committees, tasked with impartial investigations and deciding on allegations, would bring consistency. Thirdly, I suggest amending legislation to make parish councils formally accountable to their principal authority, which currently is not the case. That could include annual governance reports, direct intervention powers for serious breaches, and the provision of training to prevent issues from arising.
Those are basic, bread-and-butter issues in which we as Members of Parliament are encouraged to take a more active part, particularly when it comes to training. Parishes should retain autonomy, but the principal authority should act as a backstop for serious failures, reinforcing local governance without reverting to a centralised control such as the standards board.
Finally, we must address the absence of robust sanctions. There is a total lack of sanctions when councillors at parish, town and local authority level have been found wanting, with the exception of criminal conduct, which is dealt with separately. The power to suspend councillors —say, for up to six months—for proven bullying or harassment is essential. Currently, a counsellor can shrug off the consequences and return to the next meeting unchecked. Instead of facing the consequences, effectively nothing is done. That has an impact not just on the proper functioning of the parish or town council, but on the staff working for that parish or town council, who may themselves be the victims of the bullying or harassment. Worse still, I have heard of cases where entire councils have resigned in despair, powerless against a single disruptive individual. Suspension would offer immediate relief to victims and signal that misconduct has a cost, as it does here in the House of Commons, and as we have proven over the past few years.
Much of what I am saying echoes the 2019 review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which called for councils to suspend councillors without allowances for up to six months. The Government rejected those proposals in 2022, citing risks to free speech, and I sympathise with that, but the new Government’s 2024 consultation on sanctions suggests a welcome shift. Perhaps the Minister can say a few words about that.
We must not return to a time of bureaucratic excess and politically motivated complaints threatening freedom of expression. That is not what I am arguing for, and that is not what we see in the House of Commons. But with reports of bullying rife at parish levels and changes to local government structure in the pipeline, it is time to reconsider the recommendations of the 2019 Committee on Standards in Public Life report. I encourage the Government to take the opportunity they now have with local government reorganisation to make a positive impact by ensuring that what we see applied to all of us here in the House of Commons is mirrored in some form to other valued elected public officials.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to attend this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing it.
A key commitment of this Government was to strengthen the standards regime and integrity in public life. Specifically, that means a very active commitment to working together to create a fit, legal and decent local government sector that is equipped to rise to the challenge and opportunity of increased devolution of power and resources from Whitehall. Our proposals to achieve that were set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper, published in December last year, which included measures to fix our broken audit system; improve oversight and accountability; give councils genuine freedoms to work for and deliver in the best interests of their communities; and, with particular reference to the theme of this debate, improve the standards and conduct regime.
We are wasting no time in getting on with the task. The day after the “English Devolution” White Paper was published, we launched a 10-week consultation on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The consultation, which closed on 26 February, sought views on reforms to the standards and conduct regime so that the public can have trust and confidence that all councils in England can be effective and well governed.
Although he did not go as far as I might, I think the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was hinting that the previous Government, in the early part of that Government—with the removal of the standards regime and the audit regime, and measures such as the removal of councillors’ pensions in England—engaged in what many of us now reflect were, in large part, acts of municipal vandalism. They took away the architecture that allowed local government to thrive. The challenge is big, but we understand that we need to take significant steps to improve the situation.
All of us here today know the seven principles of public life—honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership—which have underpinned the ethical standards of all public office holders for the last 30 years. They are, and have been, the foundation of the code of conduct for Members of the House, the ministerial code and all who serve in local government and the wider public sector.
Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech at the Institute for Government in November last year on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of that committee. In that speech, he reflected on the three golden threads that Lord Nolan had set out that need to be delivered alongside the Nolan principles—first, the code of conduct; secondly, independent scrutiny; and thirdly, education.
As Lord Nolan acknowledged, the Nolan principles were not a code of conduct, but the values that would underpin a code. An effective code needs to clearly detail the behaviours that those in public office must observe to repay the public’s trust and confidence, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred to. The principles are a foundation, but the behavioural code is not quite there. There are examples in the councils that the hon. Member mentioned, and actually in some councils right across the country, of bad behaviour being far too common. That cannot stand.
While the standards proposals that the Government have been consulting on are for whole system reform, at their foundation is the proposal for a mandatory code of conduct. We believe that a mandatory code is vital to achieving consistency across all the various types and tiers of local government. The current regime simply requires all local authorities to adopt a code that is consistent with the Nolan principles. Some take the de minimis approach of simply listing the seven principles. Others have very detailed local codes. That lack of consistency is not helpful to the system overall. It is confusing and means that we cannot have confidence that all are judged to the same standard equally across the system.
That does not happen in the devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have mandatory codes of conduct in place, based on the Nolan principles but setting out detailed interpretation of the expected behaviours.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?
Jim McMahon
We have set out a very clear expectation about transparency and all authorities, whether they are local authorities or combined authorities, always acting in the public interest and being up front about information that they hold. That expectation is clear. I can respond in writing in more detail.
Steve Barclay
Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?
Jim McMahon
I will follow up after the debate on the example that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I commit to finding out a bit more information through the Department and will respond in writing. As a matter of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect that board members, as opposed to the wider public, are informed about matters of financial relevance to the operation of the board. That seems fairly self-evident to me. If he provides more information on the particular case, which I am not familiar with, I will certainly come back to him on that.
I am enormously grateful for the more than 2,000 responses that we received to the Government’s standards consultation. We are working at pace to analyse the results. We will think carefully about how to take into account the views that were expressed for each of the proposals that we have set out. The Government response will be issued in due course, and after its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing detailed implementation.
The hon. Member for South Leicestershire mentioned reorganisation, and although I completely acknowledge the examples of poor behaviour that he identifies—I have witnessed such things in some authorities, too—I would be careful not to attach local government reorganisation as an inherent risk to the standards and behaviours of councillors. I think this is cultural, and it is about a lack of framework and, honestly, slightly a result of a standards regime that has not got teeth.
There are some members who know that what they are doing is not right, and that that is not just about free speech, but about abusing the position they hold and the freedoms. We often see that relationship, where elected members who are holding court in the council chamber attack officials on the top table who have no power to respond themselves. We see that power imbalance taking place. I suspect that most elected members who are behaving in that way know exactly that their behaviour is not okay, but they also know that the standards regime has no teeth to deal with that, so what are the consequences? I would be careful not to attach that behaviour to the reorganisation point, because we want to rebuild the system from the ground up, so that every council in England—whether they are part of the 21 counties going through reorganisation or are among the rest—is subject to the same robust standards regime that does have teeth.
Let me return to the subject under debate by dealing with some of the points about not allowing the system to be used for political ends and how it has to be held up to all scrutiny at all levels. This is about having a proportionate system that can hold up to scrutiny and be tested, but it has to be mandatory. It must have sanctions that matter, including the power of suspension, the power to withhold allowances, if that is correct, and the power for premises bans, if there is a safeguarding risk at play. We have examples where councillors can be on police bail for sexual assaults, and during police bail, they can attend council meetings and attend the premises. That clearly would not be acceptable to most members of the public, but the current regime allows that, and that cannot be allowed to stand. Perhaps more controversially, the system should include disqualification in some cases for more serious breaches.
Dan Norris
Will the Minister address my point about interim officers, or perhaps write to me if there is not time today?
Jim McMahon
I will return in writing to the point about interim officers being able to move around and whether they are held to the Nolan principles as a founding principle. This debate is more about the standards regime that governs elected members in that context, and that is the consultation that we undertook.
I have no doubt that the Nolan principles will continue to be enormously influential in contributing to the effectiveness of local government. They are a prescription for the values to foster a culture of integrity and ethical behaviour. This Government are committed, at the heart of our ambition for the whole of local government, to creating a fit, legal and decent local government sector, and that is what the public have a right to expect. To be effective, local government must serve to foster vibrant local democracy. It must encourage a wide diversity of talented people to step forward to represent their local communities in that position, and we are committed to working to that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Anti-social Behaviour: East of England
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered anti-social behaviour in the East of England.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As we go about our daily lives—shopping, working, socialising or simply enjoying a quiet evening in our own home—nothing has the power to disturb our experiences like antisocial behaviour. It can make people’s lives a living hell. I am sure that my colleagues from across the east will have inboxes full of concerns raised by constituents over antisocial behaviour. It differs in its form depending on whether it is in rural or urban areas, but examples include: fly tipping; littering; loud music played at all hours; nuisance neighbours; uncontrolled animals; and the menace of off-road bikes.
Last year, the police recorded 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour nationally. Estimates from the crime survey for England and Wales showed that 36% of people experienced or witnessed some type of antisocial behaviour in their local area. In Norfolk, my county, 8,800 incidents of ASB were recorded by the police between 2023 and 2024. The Library reports that from March 2023 to March 2024, 948 incidents of ASB were recorded in my constituency. I want to bring to life what that means for my constituents, because, as I have said, it takes many different forms.
Last year, our local paper, the Eastern Daily Press, reported that antisocial behaviour in Norfolk’s libraries had increased by almost 40%, with staff offered extra support to help deal with rising abuse from visitors. Last week, I held a meeting for residents on Britannia Road, who have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and speeding in their area for years. The imposition of a public space protection order has had little effect. I am determined to work with local councillors, the council and the police to finally get some resolution. One of my constituents has told me that antisocial behaviour in carparks has meant that public toilets are being permanently closed. Just a few days ago, the city council had to lock the gates of parks and cemeteries again overnight after antisocial behaviour and vandalism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and the point that she is referring to concerns me as well. It is always saddening to hear about incidents of antisocial behaviour across the UK. Examples include alarming incidents of graffiti, destroying public spaces such as children’s parks and inappropriate drawings on children’s slides. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be a better community police presence to take substantive action to ensure that parents do not have to worry about potential damage to park equipment and inappropriate graffiti that young ones may witness at a very early age?
Alice Macdonald
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I totally agree. I will come on to the importance of a visible police presence later in my speech. As I said, the city councils have had to lock the gates of parks. Just today, the Feed cafe, a brilliant social enterprise in Waterloo Park in Norwich North, spoke out because it had suffered vandalism again. The manager said that they felt targeted and intimidated. They called for CCTV, which is something that the local council and I will back.
Derelict sites have also become hotspots for antisocial behaviour. Very sadly, a huge blaze broke out a few weeks ago at an empty shoe factory in Dibden Road. Seventeen fire crews had to attend from across the county. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, but derelict sites such as this one are too often not properly secured.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, I get regular reports of antisocial behaviour in Pleasurefair Meadow carpark and Stanham Way, relating to the screeching of tyres from motorbikes, loud music until the early hours of the morning and constant instances of drugs and antisocial drinking. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take this sort of antisocial behaviour seriously wherever it is happening and that the local residents should not have to put up with it?
Alice Macdonald
I completely agree. Sometimes antisocial behaviour can be dismissed as trivial incidents, but we all know that they are not trivial and that they cause a real disturbance to many of our residents. I also know that my constituents are continually frustrated by antisocial and inconsiderate parking. I am sure that other Members here also have issues raised with them on that, whether it is obstructing pavements or blocking driveways. Indeed, research by the British Parking Association in the last few years has revealed that this is one of the biggest frustrations British people experience in their daily lives.
I want to be clear that Norwich is a great place to live; indeed, we have seen communities rallying round to support each other after antisocial behaviour. But a small minority can cause misery for many, so I welcome the measures that the Government set out yesterday in the Crime and Policing Bill. I particularly welcome the new powers for police to seize vehicles causing havoc in our city centres, removing the prior need for a warning to be given. Recently, e-bikes and e-scooters have been subject to a police crackdown in Norwich, with 12 of them being seized in just one day.
The new respect orders will also give the police and local councils powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres or from drinking in public places, such as high streets and parks. That will make a real difference in areas such as Prince of Wales Road in Norwich. It is home to a lot of vibrant nightlife, but businesses there have often made complaints about antisocial behaviour. I hope the Minister can reassure us that for serious and persistent offenders who affect our constituents day after day, respect orders will indeed give authorities the powers they need.
Of course, many of these measures will only be effective if we have police on the streets to enforce them. I pay tribute to the police and police staff in Norwich and Norfolk, and across the country, who work really hard. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers, with a named and contactable officer in every community. I have met many of the local officers in our area through safer neighbourhoods teams meetings and they work incredibly hard, but often they are stretched to cover the areas they are supposed to cover.
I welcome the fact that the Government have increased police funding by £1.1 billion, which is a 4.1% increase in real terms, including funding to kickstart the recruitment of new officers. Norfolk Constabulary is set to receive £235 million in 2025, which is an increase of £12.8 million on 2024. However, can the Minister reassure me that the recruitment of 13,000 neighbourhood officers and the funding package being provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk streets, so our residents can see and be reassured by their presence?
Under the Conservatives, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but I know that Labour is determined to change that. However, there are still real challenges. The chair of Norfolk Police Federation spoke out earlier this year about the difficulties facing the police forces in our county, including officers leaving or having to take time away from the workplace because of the huge pressures being placed on them. Could the Minister also talk about the action we are taking to support the police at work and address retention issues?
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene.
In my constituency of Southend East and Rochford, we share many of the same issues that my hon. Friend is experiencing in her constituency in Norwich. We have a high street that needs to be reanimated and low levels of antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said of her community, there is also a great community in my constituency, so I wholeheartedly support what she is saying.
I also encourage people to visit Southend East and Rochford, because it is really important that communities are reanimated by people visiting the area and spending time in a community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we create the conditions in our high streets, towns and city centres that enable them to thrive? And does she support the Government in their crackdown on crime?
Alice Macdonald
I do agree and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, I recently visited Southend and saw what a vibrant community it is. I believe that the new measures will benefit not only the east of England as a whole but the entire country.
I will just conclude my point about police and police financing. As the Minister will be aware, the chief constable of Norfolk is also the national policing lead for finance, and he has raised a number of issues with me, including some no-cost ideas that could be explored to relieve pressure on the police, such as the flexibility for the police to recruit the right workforce mix. I hope that in her response to the debate, the Minister will speak about that issue and perhaps outline some of her conversations with the chief constable.
As I have said, Norwich is a wonderful place to live and we can all play our part in ensuring that our fine city stays that way. It is vital that the fight against antisocial behaviour is carried out at all levels. I welcome the work of Sarah Taylor, the excellent police and crime commissioner for Norfolk. I also welcome the work of Norwich City Council’s excellent Love Norwich campaign, which aims to tackle environmental antisocial behaviour, with a range of measures to tackle fly-tipping, littering and graffiti.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about councils. In my area, Central Bedfordshire Council has just decided to remove all of its safer neighbourhood officers. The chief constable has said that there will be increased risks to the public because of that. These are uniformed people who go around our streets handing out fixed penalty notices for littering, looking at graffiti and generally making members of the community feel safer. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the council voted against an amendment to keep such officers in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that councils have a duty to make sure that they crack down on low-level antisocial behaviour, and that if they do not do so, there will be a real knock-on effect on local people?
Alice Macdonald
I totally agree. As I said, action needs to be taken at all levels, including central Government, local government and in communities, which do brilliant work. The Love Norwich campaign also includes a grant scheme where communities can apply for up to £2,500 to enhance and open all communal space near them. This is the best of our society in action.
I am sure we have all seen litter-picks led by local volunteers in action in our areas, which see people come together to keep our areas clean, safe and welcoming for all residents. I also welcome the investment of our Labour-led city council in new security doors, including at St James Close in Norwich North. Many of my constituents have told me that unrestricted access can contribute to long-running antisocial behaviour issues. Of course, we want to prevent those issues in the first place, but it is a good example of a local council responding to what it is hearing from local communities.
I will conclude with this message: antisocial behaviour is a blight on all our communities. It cannot and will not be tolerated. I applaud the Government’s efforts in taking actions to tackle it and to put more police on our streets, but there is still a long way to go. I know that the Government will continue to do everything they can to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour in all its forms.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this important debate this afternoon. Some antisocial behaviour problems can be extremely localised down a single street, in a block of flats or between neighbours, ruining the lives of individuals targeted but sometimes going unnoticed by the wider community.
In recent months, many constituents have written to me and asked for help in dealing with antisocial behaviour problems caused by their neighbours in housing association properties. Research found that those living in housing associations are up to 30% more likely to experience criminal or inconsiderate antisocial behaviour compared with those who own their own property. That sort of behaviour ruins lives, and when it is happening in the vicinity of our own homes, there is often no escape.
The situation is made even worse when the victim is vulnerable due to their age or a medical condition. Sadly, it is far too common for me to hear that housing associations responsible are failing to take this issue seriously. As I have said before in the House, it is clear that, as well as the police, housing associations must play a full role in dealing with antisocial behaviour. While I welcome the Government’s rhetoric on tackling the scourge within our communities, it remains to be seen whether their new respect orders will be fully utilised by housing association providers. From my experience, they are not always interested in hearing about antisocial behaviour problems in the first place.
Previously in the House, I was told that
“existing civil injunctions will be renamed as housing injunctions, which will deal with that more low-level antisocial behaviour between neighbours.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 799.]
The explanatory notes to the Crime and Policing Bill state that housing injunctions can be applied for in the same way as the previous civil injunctions. How exactly will renaming something that already exists help to deal with this type of behaviour in our communities, when my constituents are telling me that the current system does not go far enough? I look forward to clarification on that specific point from the Minister, when she winds up this debate.
What has been proven to cut antisocial behaviour is hotspot policing, and I am pleased to say that the fruits of this can be seen in my constituency of Broxbourne, thanks to the efforts of our fantastic police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, and our hard-working local police officers. In January alone, Waltham Cross saw more than 682 hours of additional police patrols being carried out, eight arrests were made, and two weapons were seized. That increased visibility is reassuring to residents and prevents crime before it actually occurs. In some hotspot areas in Hertfordshire, antisocial behaviour has been reduced by up to 50%, which I absolutely welcome.
Our constituents, whether they live in social housing or are simply using their local town centre, expect and deserve to feel safe. As the Minister knows, driving down antisocial behaviour is crucial to achieving that, and I will be watching the Government very closely to see whether they follow through on their promise.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate on an issue of deep importance to our constituents. I start by acknowledging that Hertford and Stortford is a fantastic place to live, work and learn. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted the best start in life for me, and growing up I was lucky enough to benefit from the diverse offering of opportunity in our semi-rural community.
Our residents are deeply proud of our towns and villages and want our local area to thrive, but too often, instances of antisocial behaviour cause huge disruption to their lives and blight our communities. In the year ending March 2024, there were just over 2,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour in Hertford and Stortford. Those are not simply statistics. Each incident leaves residents who feel less secure on their way home from work, in our town centres, or even in their own home at night. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work being done by police in our community. I am pleased that tackling retail crime and antisocial behaviour in Sawbridgeworth is a priority for the police, with extra patrols and public appeals to identify perpetrators. Likewise, I welcome the use of regular speed checks on Hadham Road in Bishop’s Stortford to tackle antisocial and dangerous driving, with one driver issued with a traffic offence report after he was caught speeding at 54 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that when police set up patrols to catch people who speed, the news quickly gets on to apps to tell people coming down the road that there is a policeman standing there with a speed gun? Does he think the Government should explore whether to ban apps that do that, so that we can catch people who speed on our roads?
Josh Dean
I thank the hon. Member for raising that interesting point, which I will certainly consider. It is important that we tackle antisocial driving and speeding. We have a specific incident spot on West Street in Hertford, where residents have been campaigning to deal with antisocial driving and speeding not just since I was a councillor there a year ago, but for the past 25 years. I am sure Members will not mind me pointing out that that is longer than I have been alive.
We know that antisocial behaviour takes many forms, often going hand in hand with crime, and that means that our police have to fight on multiple fronts, but they will always have my support when they take positive steps to tackle antisocial behaviour in our community. We know there is more to do, and I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to cracking down on the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities, including through the tough new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill. Residents regularly disturbed by e-scooters and off-road bikes misused on our streets will welcome the removal of the requirement for police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour.
Ours must also be a Government who tackle antisocial behaviour at its roots, so in the time I have remaining I shall talk about antisocial behaviour among young people. Too often in semi-rural communities like mine, young people are driven to antisocial behaviour by lack of provision and support. The famous image of the loitering youth only exists because there is so rarely anywhere else for them to go, such was the decimation of youth services under the watch of the previous Government for 14 years.
I pay tribute to the work of the charities and voluntary organisations filling gaps in youth services in our community, particularly the Thirst Youth Café in Bishop’s Stortford and FUTUREhope in Hertford, where I once volunteered. Their work not only deters young people from antisocial behaviour and the more serious crime it acts as a doorway to, but builds their confidence, so that they can find the path that is right for them and contribute positively to our community.
I warmly welcome the work that this Government are undertaking to introduce a network of Young Futures hubs to support young people’s development in communities like mine, to improve their mental health and wellbeing and to stop them from being drawn into a life of crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also encouraged by plans to develop a new national youth strategy to deliver better co-ordinated youth services at the local, regional and national levels, and to help all our young people to reach their full potential.
Jim Shannon
I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman says about the groups helping to give young people an opportunity to do something. Does he have in his constituency, as I have in mine, churches that reach out to help? For example, in Newtownards, the Salvation Army is developing a new centre. Those sorts of outreach efforts that people are doing individually and voluntarily will make a big difference. Does he agree?
Josh Dean
Absolutely. The groups I mentioned are supported by local churchgoers and religious groups in our community. I pay tribute to them, not least because I was supported by youth services as a young person. I would not be standing here as the Member of Parliament for Hertford and Stortford without them.
I am looking forward to engaging in coming months with young people and local service providers in our community, to ensure that they can contribute directly as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport develops the exciting new national youth strategy.
On that point, I shall be grateful if the Minister outlines how the Home Office is working across Government to ensure that tackling antisocial behaviour and crime prevention are wired into the national youth strategy. Also, how will the Home Office work with policing teams in semi-rural communities such as mine to continue to crack down on antisocial behaviour?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
As a former youth worker, I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend talk about the benefits of youth services. Does he agree that we have seen an erosion of youth services across the east? When cuts are made to council funding, children’s and youth services are often the first to go.
Josh Dean
I could not agree more. I often hear Conservative Members speak of their Government’s successes, but young people like me lived its failures. Too often, youth services, arts and culture—the things that help young people in our communities to find the path that is right for them—that were first for the chopping block. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and, on that point, I will conclude.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing such an important debate. My constituents have great pride in our community. The marriage of town and country was the vision behind Welwyn Garden City, and Hatfield is a new town that blends hundreds of years of history, such as Hatfield House, with a spirit of innovation as the home of the world’s first jet airliner. Antisocial behaviour is damaging because it chips away at that sense of pride in our communities. Instead of embracing public spaces, people are forced indoors, not looking outwards. They lock the doors to try to stay safe at home.
Like other hon. Members, I hear too many stories of how antisocial behaviour takes its toll on my constituents. I have heard of rocks being thrown at family homes, public urination on street corners, and a banned breed of dog locked up, rarely walked and behaving menacingly. Perhaps most powerful of all, a 10-year-old primary school student on a fantastic visit told me that they had seen a pensioner nearly knocked over by an off-road bike being illegally raced through one of our parks; the incident had made them worried to go to the King George V playing fields in Welwyn Garden City. It is time for action, and this Government get that.
Sam Carling
We have that problem with off-road bikes as well e-scooters on pavements. I receive regular complaints from my constituents about them being used improperly, often putting elderly people at great risk because they cannot move out of the way quickly enough when one whizzes up behind them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take that sort of antisocial behaviour seriously? Does he welcome, as I do, the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help police seize those vehicles?
Andrew Lewin
I absolutely do. My hon. Friend is right to talk about older people being vulnerable to e-scooters, but I think also of young families, mums and dads with prams and babies. I have heard some horror stories about their experiences. I completely endorse what he said.
The Government are taking action. I was delighted to see the Crime and Policing Bill pass Second Reading yesterday. I shall briefly highlight three of its measures, some of which have already been referenced, that could make a difference in Welwyn and Hatfield. First, the Bill will give police the power to seize bikes or vehicles immediately, removing the need for a warning. That is an important change. If bikes or e-scooters are being ridden irresponsibly, let us get them straight off the road.
Secondly, respect orders will give local councils and police powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres, or from drinking in public spaces such as high streets and local parks. Crucially, failure to comply with a respect order will be a criminal offence, so police will have the power to arrest people in breach straight away. Finally and perhaps most important is the manifesto commitment Labour made to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police community support officers across the country, with a focus on targeting the most prolific offenders.
Welwyn Hatfield is at its best when the streets are bustling and people come together, feeling both security and pride in the place they call home. This Labour Government understand how much that matters to people, and why tackling antisocial behaviour locally and nationally is rightly a priority.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing forward this important debate. Antisocial behaviour and disorder is a blight on our high streets and town centres, and I hear all too often from my constituents in Thurrock about behaviour that is making their lives a misery, forcing them to avoid problem areas and, in the worst cases, making them too afraid to leave their homes. Through experiences that have been shared with me, I see how crime perceived to be low level leads to people worrying about themselves and their children, and feeling unsafe in their community. These problems can all too often feel intractable.
At a street meeting that I recently held in west Thurrock, residents told me that their peaceful lives had been made consistently miserable by the menace of dirt bikes. One resident told me that the noise is unbearable, sometimes continuing for hours at a time. Those who work from home have their working hours consistently interrupted by the noise of dirt bikes.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
There are many things about the Crime and Policing Bill that I welcome, but I particularly welcome the action that we are going to take on dirt bikes. I hope in the future that we also look at other types of vehicles, particularly those with modified exhausts. One of the problems that I often hear about from residents, and that I have come across many times myself, is boy racers at all hours of the day seemingly acting with impunity because the police and local councils often do not have the resources to act.
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend is right that powers introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill will go some way towards alleviating some of these problems. He raises a good point about how the noise itself is an issue which exacerbates people’s fear of this kind of antisocial behaviour, which makes some areas almost a no-go zone. That cannot be right. Another resident told me that when those bikes are out and about she is worried for her child’s safety. She approaches the distance between her house and the local park with fear, as she knows the bikes are being driven in an illegal and reckless manner. She worries that her child could eventually be hit by one of those drivers, having had a number of close shaves in the past.
I have held a number of coffee afternoons to bring residents together to discuss the issue of antisocial behaviour and crime in their neighbourhood. The problems I hear about are consistent, and ones that all Members in this Chamber will be familiar with—things like graffiti, disorderly behaviour, dirt bikes and fly-tipping. I know there are measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to give councils more powers to tackle fly-tipping. They are all things that add to the overall impression of an area that is run down and undesirable. Our area and places across the country deserve better than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North spoke about her area having much to offer and great civic pride. Thurrock also has a lot to offer, but we find that too often communities are afraid to come together in that spirit because of the behaviour they see on their own doorstep. One of the things that comes up time and again is the broken link between communities and their local neighbourhood and community policing force. The refrain, which will again be familiar to most of us in the Chamber, is, “You just don’t see a police officer any more.”
The Government’s switch to pushing for community policing is the right move. It allows police officers to get to know the area, the pinch points and the issues that residents have. It offers visible reassurance to people who are afraid to leave their homes that there are police available, and that they are on their side. Quite often residents say, “I haven’t got the time to sit and call 111, or to file a report that goes into great detail about what I saw and when, but if I saw a police officer on the street, I would go up to them and say that I saw this behaviour, at this time, at this place.” That builds an intelligence-led policing narrative that can only be for the best.
That is why I welcome the Government’s move to neighbourhood and community policing. It is the kind of preventive work that stops problems becoming larger, that allows people to feel safe on their streets, and that ultimately allows for the kind of society that we all want to see and live in. Of course serious crimes must be given priority, but in this era of competing priorities, what plans do the Government have to make sure that police forces prioritise community policing, and recognise the importance of a visible police presence on the street and people having a named police officer for their area? How can we encourage police forces to follow through with that?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald)—my Norfolk colleague—on securing this important debate.
Statistically, Norfolk is one of the safest counties in the whole country, but antisocial behaviour is still very much a concern county-wide, including in South West Norfolk. I am regularly reminded that statistics offer little comfort for those experiencing antisocial behaviour. Nationally, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, a record 24% of people believe that antisocial behaviour is very or fairly bad. I do not think it is unreasonable for people to expect to feel safe in their own communities and their own homes.
During the Conservatives’ 14 years in government, instead of delivering law and order, they did the exact opposite. They hollowed out neighbourhood policing and gutted and broke the criminal justice system, so that more than 90% of crimes now go unsolved.
Lewis Cocking
I remind the hon. Member that the last Conservative Government recruited 20,000 police officers across the country and the only force not to meet that target was the Metropolitan police under Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.
Terry Jermy
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. In Norfolk, there were fewer serving police officers at the end of the last 14 years than there were at the start. We have made that point repeatedly.
Some 240 police community support officers were scrapped entirely and not replaced on a like-for-like basis. The then Conservative police and crime commissioner cut all police community support officers—Norfolk was the first force in the country to do so. As a former youth worker in the constituency and a long-time councillor, I saw the immediate impact of that decision. PCSOs were able to make connections with the community; they met councillors and residents’ associations, and collected and shared information where possible. In Thetford, the largest town in my constituency, there was a PCSO based in the main high school, who built a rapport with young people that paid dividends later on.
Labour’s mission in government is to restore trust in our justice system as a key pillar of our society, and that mission has begun. I am delighted that just yesterday the Home Secretary highlighted the pledge to provide 13,000 more neighbourhood police and community support officers, alongside an extra £200 million of funding in the next financial year.
I am very proud to be a Labour MP in a rural constituency, and I am particularly pleased that this Government are looking to deliver a new rural crime strategy. We need a fresh approach to tackling crime in rural areas. We must recognise that crime and antisocial behaviour is different in rural areas. Crimes such as hare coursing and livestock worrying are major issues in my constituency and of great concern to residents.
I pay tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and its Freedom from Fear campaign, which seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against workers and protect them from antisocial and threatening behaviour by the public. I have spoken to staff in village shops across South West Norfolk who often work alone and in very remote areas. The abuse of retail workers is a huge concern to them. The Government understand the need for further protections and I was delighted that just yesterday, on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Home Secretary announced that we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker.
I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the opportunities and the programme for delivery for rural communities in the east.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate.
I will start with a quick stocktake of my constituency and the region. I am immensely proud of my community, as I know everyone in this room is of their own, and I do not want to be accused of doing my town down in any way, but we undoubtedly have some important challenges with antisocial behaviour. In January 2024, we were the worst major town in Hertfordshire for antisocial behaviour, with more than 200 reported incidents. The town centre, which should be—and is—a great place to meet friends and loved ones and do some shopping, is now one of the most dangerous in the county. Dacorum has the highest number of vulnerable children at risk of exploitation by drug dealers and county lines in Hertfordshire. Indeed, we have a long-standing issue with drugs. I do not talk about this often, for obvious reasons, but even members of my own family have in the past been affected by drug addiction issues due to scumbag drug dealers peddling horrible drugs.
In Hemel Hempstead, the overall crime rate in 2023 was 95 crimes per 1,000 people. Damningly, between 2014 and 2024, the crime rate doubled. I am proud of my community, but we cannot allow the thugs to win. People often ask why we are in this mess, and it is impossible to ignore the indisputable fact that, in the time that the Conservatives were in power—14 years nationally and longer locally—local crime skyrocketed. They ignored antisocial behaviour, cut our police force by 20,000 officers nationally and took 60p out of every £1 from local authorities. Objectively, that is why we are where we are; this is their mess, and people in my patch are the ones who have to deal with it.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I was delighted to speak last night on Second Reading of the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, and to vote in favour of it. It is at the heart of our Government’s safer streets mission, and I want to briefly touch on some aspects of the Bill that will help to combat antisocial behaviour in my patch and in the region.
Clause 1 will provide the police, local authorities and other agencies with a new power to tackle antisocial behaviour: respect orders. Like a stuck record, I will once again suggest that Hemel Hempstead should be considered for a respect order pilot. I believe that the orders will make an incredible difference to the hard-working local police force.
Clause 4 will make life tougher for criminals and thugs by increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500. We must make sure that victims are prioritised and criminals face the full force of the law. There must be enough of a sting that they think twice before behaving in this manner.
Part 3 of the Bill will address retail crime, as others have mentioned. I will not repeat what I said in the Chamber yesterday, except to highlight the need to ensure that we are not letting people wander into our shops and steal what they want with impunity.
Clause 14 will introduce a new crime of assaulting a retail worker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for highlighting this point and I agree with him. I also put on the record my thanks to both USDAW and the Co-operative party for their hard work and campaigning on these issues over many years. We saw during covid that retail workers are not just hard-working, outstanding members of our community, but essential to our very survival, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Government will reflect that in law.
Labour is taking seriously the blight of antisocial behaviour, but so too have our police. As I have said before, I have been out with bobbies on the beat through a ride-along scheme. If any Member of this House has not taken part in such a scheme, I recommend that they do so—indeed, many police forces allow individual citizens to do so—because it is an eye-opening demonstration of the tough challenges that our police face. They are true heroes of our community.
Thanks to local police in Hertfordshire, we have seen some progress in tackling the blight of antisocial behaviour, despite the resource pressures that they have faced. I thank them again for their service. The force’s Operation Clear Hold Build in the Grovehill area of my town and Operation Hotspot in the town centre have brought significant uplifts in patrols and prevention.
I also thank the Minister for her engagement. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to meet her recently to discuss some of the specific issues in my constituency, including antisocial behaviour hotspots such as Hosking Court, Livingstone Walk, Swallowfields. For too long, people in Hemel Hempstead have been let down, but this Labour Government are showing leadership. I look forward to continuing to do all that I can locally to ensure that the national changes that we make are felt in my town.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing the debate. I rise to share case studies that parallel those we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), among others.
Let me take Members all the way back to my time at secondary school, in the wonderful community of Haxby. Unfortunately, that community has declined thanks to the threat and disdain we have seen relating to ASB. We have seen shops’ doors smashed down and fires in parks, with people setting fire to crucial resources for the wonderful people in these towns and villages.
Let me give a more recent and striking example. With apologies to any Conservatives present, I will take Members back to the general election. It was a lovely day in beautiful Bishopthorpe. I had been walking up the street and called into a local shop. I saw two people running out of the front door each holding baskets full of instant coffee. Those, of course, were stolen—totally unacceptable—and they were harassing people through the village as they left. I reported that to the staff, but they said despondently that this had all become too much of a regular occurrence, and that abuse and shoplifting went hand in hand.
Shoplifting and abuse became commonplace under the Conservatives. They seemed to stop caring about low-level crime. As a result, antisocial behaviour in our constituencies spiked. If someone steals a couple of hundred pounds a few times a week, that is not a low-level crime for a small business; it could be a question of survival, but it also has ramifications for the wider community. Stories travel in closely knit communities such as the ones we represent.
Let me share another example of how antisocial behaviour has deeply affected my constituents. One wrote to me about his neighbour’s garden, which is seen as a source of pride by the community; it has been cared for and tended for years. However, a group of youths in the area ransacked the garden, undoing all that hard work, and then, shamefully, they refused even to apologise. I could not imagine how frightening that was for the neighbour, let alone how disheartening it was after he had spent so many years making his garden look so lovely.
This Government are all about restoring pride in our communities and in each other. I do not always blame the last Government, because it is more complicated than that. For generations, our young people have not had opportunities, which have been taken away, and they have felt disenchanted. But under this Government, opportunities for young people will change. That is the way we will tackle the root cause of antisocial behaviour.
I move on to another case. A constituent told me how his wife was left terrified after her car was followed and she had abuse shouted at her. It is critical that we stop such things happening as part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but the most heartbreaking thing for me was hearing her suggest that such incidents had become normalised in the community and that there was no clear end in sight. That must stop.
I will give a final example of antisocial behaviour, this time from Strensall. A father shared with me how his son’s beloved bike was stolen from him while the child was defenceless. This one is personal. As a young dad myself, I would be devastated to see my son upset at the hands of such cruel behaviour in my community. His son is now left without a bike but, more than that, he has lost his confidence. That is unforgivable. The stories we have heard today are just too many and they are all unacceptable. That is why I am pleased that the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill sailed through Second Reading yesterday as we start to get a grip on the common occurrences I have mentioned.
I pay special tribute to the Minister, who has been extremely supportive of tackling antisocial behaviour in my community of Haxby. In fact, she was so supportive that just yesterday I received a response from her, for which I am grateful. She is a fantastic Yorkshire colleague and, in our region’s spirit of directness, I want to make a small suggestion. In the community I represent, we find that some of those causing trouble are 15, 16 and 17 years old. The respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill are a huge stride forward in tackling antisocial behaviour, but they do not apply to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. Is there a place for something like a junior respect order or some other pilot or tailored measure to root out antisocial behaviour in that age bracket?
I want to end by giving a brief shout-out to the neighbourhood policing teams in York Outer, and in particular to Sergeant Henderson, who I have worked with closely. I know at first hand just how committed he and his team are to serving our local community. Like me, he is determined to end the epidemic of antisocial behaviour.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North again on securing this debate. I hope all Members present can leave in agreement that now is the time to tackle antisocial behaviour once and for all.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Although I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for this debate, I also declare a strong interest in that I am the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford in Essex—for Members who do not know the geography, that is firmly in the east of England.
I will start by saying a few things about my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken with pride about their constituencies and how important it is that antisocial behaviour is curbed. Chelmsford is a lovely urban constituency with lots of wonderful things going on—of course, I am slightly biased—but when I am out knocking on doors, constituents tell me about things that are not going quite so well. They worry about drug dealing, as several constituents told me on Saturday when I was in the centre of Chelmsford. They tell me about fly-tipping, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They tell me about the noisy car meets around the constituency. I used to live by the Army and Navy, one of Chelmsford’s main junctions, and the noise used to keep me awake at night sometimes, so I know how frustrating it can be.
Structural issues can also lead to antisocial behaviour, including broken streetlights, which make people feel unsafe when they walk around the constituency. We need local councils to be much better at tackling such issues. Constituents are tolerant but understandably a bit fed up of antisocial behaviour, and we certainly need to do more to tackle it.
Antisocial behaviour can very low level, including people riding bikes on pavements—an annoying thing that happens in my constituency and, I am sure, across the country—and when new trees have been planted and somebody comes along and chops them in half overnight. Nobody is going to be very ill off the back of that, but people are understandably frustrated by it.
On fly-tipping, hon. Members mentioned the fabulous volunteers who help to make our constituencies better places. I would like to single out the volunteers of the Chelmsford Litter Wombles, who spend much of their free time going out and clearing up after littering and antisocial behaviour. I have joined them on various occasions to help them clear up.
Many hon. Members raised the important point that everyone deserves to feel safe when they walk around their neighbourhood. Well over half of hon. Members focused on the importance of policing, punishment and tackling crime, which I agree is important, but it is a shame that more of them did not focus on what is driving those issues in the first place, although some did raise it. It was heartwarming, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) be the first to substantially discuss the lack of provision and support for young people and the importance of youth services.
Youth services were slashed by the previous Government, which left gaps. The issue is not just about youth services as we think of them being provided by councils; it is also about funding for charities and other organisations that can help, and schools’ extracurricular activities. Schools simply do not have the budget for sports activities, music and drama—all the things that help young people to develop, give them an alternative to getting into trouble, and set them up for life.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see more focus on early intervention and on giving young people something to do. This debate is about antisocial behaviour, but knife crime, which has been mentioned, unfortunately fits into that. We would like to see a public health approach taken to the epidemic of youth violence—an approach that identifies and treats the risk factors rather than just focusing on the symptoms. There should be investment in youth services that are genuinely engaging and reach more people. We must give young people the support and opportunities that they deserve to help our communities and individuals feel safer.
The bottom line is that talk is cheap; it is action that really matters. We need to understand the driving forces behind some of the antisocial behaviour. That is not just about the lack of provision of youth services; we need to see why the people who are in our prisons are there in the first place. When we talk about tackling crime, the ultimate endpoint of that is people ending up in prison, but the endless cycle of crime and punishment, with more crime simply leading to calls for more police and tougher sentences, is just not working. Some studies suggest that 50% of the prison population may have dyslexia or other neurodivergent conditions. When that is the case, we are getting something very wrong, so we need to focus on what is driving antisocial behaviour in the first place.
Unnecessarily criminalising young people makes it only more likely that they will commit crimes in future. We know that high-quality youth work gets results: it has been proven time and again to help vulnerable young people to escape the clutches of gangs. As I said, however, the previous Conservative Government slashed youth services. Unfortunately, that robbed young people of hope and contributed to the rise in serious violence. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North again for initiating this important debate and for its focus on the east of England.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), is busy on a Bill Committee, so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), and, I am sure, the Minister, I experience these issues in my own constituency as a constituency MP. Just this morning I was on a call with the local police to talk about a recent spate of antisocial behaviour in Bexhill. Again, it is a fantastic place to live, work and raise a family, but it is still experiencing these issues.
Hon. Members present will be aware that the east of England is not easily described in simple terms. As with my own region, its towns, cities and countryside create a diverse landscape, making policing challenging. The urban-rural divide leads to varied patterns of crime and offending, and to different demands on resources. Crime rates in the east of England are lower than the national average, and crimes excluding fraud have seen the rate per 1,000 people fall by 12.5% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the antisocial behaviour crime rate is 4.6% lower in the east of England than it was last year. However, that is not enough. We must always be more ambitious in tackling crime; our constituents deserve to live their lives free from the burden of antisocial behaviour.
It is fortunate that in certain regions we have effective police and crime commissioners working hard to address the very issue that we are discussing today. I understand that antisocial behaviour accounts for 14.5% of all crime recorded in the region; it is second only to violent crime at 36.5%. It is essential that the Government work with local forces to implement effective strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour, recognising the damage that it causes in undermining trust within our communities.
The Government have said that tackling antisocial behaviour is a policing priority, and I know that people across the country will welcome measures to curb this behaviour, which does so much harm. Research conducted under the last Government highlighted its impact, with one Home Office study revealing that 66% of people changed their behaviour in at least one way because of antisocial behaviour.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that Governments of both parties have sought to reduce antisocial behaviour over many decades—and, as we have discussed, over the lifetimes of some of the hon. Members present—but we have not yet been able to completely crack the problem. The previous Government produced an antisocial behaviour action plan and took steps to implement a zero-tolerance approach by banning nitrous oxide, by increasing fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and by delivering hundreds of thousands of hours of uniformed patrols targeting hotspots blighted by antisocial behaviour. Given my four years as a volunteer policeman, I felt that the immediate justice element of the plan had particular potential.
Data from pilot forces, including Essex, showed that over 100,000 additional hours of ASB-focused patrols were conducted in pilot areas. That led to a significant increase in enforcement activity, including nearly 800 arrests, close to 2,000 instances of stop and search, and nearly 1,000 uses of antisocial behaviour tools and powers.
Jen Craft
I am an Essex MP, and I am interested in the shadow Minister’s comments on enforcement measures over the last few decades. It is my understanding that the issuance of public notices for offences such as being drunk and disorderly, and other low-level behaviour, actually fell to zero in 2023, whereas such notices were consistently issued in 2010. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Dr Mullan
I am not familiar with the data about those notices for the hon. Member’s constituency. Of course, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the focus of police and patterns of crime. For example, in this debate we have talked about shoplifting but we have seen, at the same time, a decrease in burglaries, car thefts and so on. The police must always be nimble and not allow themselves to be overly distracted by one particular element of crime, but I take the hon. Member’s point seriously.
Recently, the Essex police, fire and crime commissioner outlined the benefits of an additional £1.6 million for hotspot patrols to tackle antisocial behaviour in 15 areas. The first phase of that initiative, known as Operation Dial, resulted in 101 arrests and the issuance of 112 fixed penalty notices—in keeping with what the hon. Member mentioned—across 13 zones. It is welcome that Essex has not been alone in this practice: police forces in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are also utilising targeted, visible patrols that have the dual effect of addressing antisocial behaviour and serious violence.
Marie Goldman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex recently proposed getting rid of all 99 PCSOs in Essex? Does the hon. Gentleman think that would ever be the right thing to do?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Lady must forgive me: as I explained, I am not the shadow Policing Minister so, although I have heard about that, I do not know the local circumstances in detail. I am sure that she has made representations to the police, fire and crime commissioner on behalf of her constituents, as is appropriate if she does not agree with that course of action.
Analysis conducted by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that patrols are particularly valuable. Its research, based on meta-analysis, found that hotspot policing has the potential to reduce overall offending by 17%, including reducing violent crime by 14%, property crime by 16%, disorder offences by 20% and drug offences by 30%. What did Labour come in and do? It scrapped the wider roll-out of the immediate justice approach, despite evidence of its clear benefits. Was Labour ready to go with its own ideas, after 14 years in opposition in which to come up with them? No: we faced a lull at a time when the programme we had been successfully delivering could have gone further. We now have to wait for further pilots and a wider roll-out of Labour’s different approach.
Behind the headline figures on police funding, the details reveal a different picture. The funding settlement for the police announced a few weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister increased funding by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure at the time. However, the funding pressures faced by police forces across England and Wales—including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance—add up to £1.205 billion for the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks. That is about £160 million more than the funding increase.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s finance lead—the local chief constable of the hon. Member for Norwich North, as she mentioned—warned that those pressures would
“inevitably lead to cuts across forces”.
The 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut up to 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall, whereas we delivered the highest ever number of police officers on the country’s streets—149,679—and oversaw a 51% reduction in overall crime, excluding fraud. We should all be concerned about what may happen next.
I will also pick up on the points made about youth services and again refer to my experience as a volunteer police officer. We should always be cautious about supporting a narrative that excuses criminality. The vast majority of young people from all different backgrounds, with access to exactly the same services—whether those service levels are higher or lower than we might want—do not commit crime. We should never say that a lack of a youth club is an excuse for young people to turn to crime. What we actually know is that parental background, parental responsibility and families have an incredibly important role to play. When we support the narrative that excuses criminality, we talk down the many successful parents who are doing a good job of keeping their kids on the straight and narrow, regardless of what local services are available.
Jen Craft
The majority of young people do not commit crime or antisocial behaviour, and obviously there are parenting choices in there to be applauded; however, there is considerable data about, for example, the prevalence of special educational needs and undiagnosed disabilities among the prison population. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some people are at a disadvantage and predisposed to this kind of behaviour? It benefits us all to tackle the root causes of the behaviour rather than just look at its effects.
Dr Mullan
My point is that we have to be clear about the narrative we are all supporting. I did not hear a single Labour Member talk about the important role of parents. I am happy to acknowledge that there are risk factors, but when I talk about these issues I am always clear about the balance, and I did not hear any of that balance from any Labour Members.
I am confident that the Minister will highlight the Crime and Policing Bill, which as we heard was discussed at length last night. One of the provisions that the Government have emphasised is respect orders; however, questions remain about their impact and the extent to which they will produce different outcomes in reducing antisocial behaviour. The Government have stated that the rehabilitative aspects of the orders will make them more effective than the previous regime, and that they will include more robust powers when enforced. Can the Minister clarify what resources will be allocated to support the rehabilitative elements? I note the Government recognise that the success of respect orders is not guaranteed, which is why a pilot scheme is being introduced to assess them. Will she outline where they will be implemented and how their success will be measured?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), always a doughty champion for his constituents, talked about the importance of housing associations. This is something that I have also experienced as a constituency MP. Will the Minister confirm what engagement she has had with housing associations? In addition, has she had discussions with colleagues across Government to ensure that the approach to antisocial behaviour is co-ordinated across all Departments?
As I have said, we have heard repeatedly from police forces, including those in the east of England, about the strain on their budgets. In Norfolk, the local force has expressed concerns about its £4 million funding shortfall, which has been met with an inadequate level of supplementary funding. Additionally, in Essex, there are the challenges of funding PSCOs that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned—the very group of people that we expect to be able to work in this area. I ask the Minister to give us a clear set of measures and targets for how the Government expect to do so much better through delivery of this programme.
Alice Macdonald
We had quite a lot of consensus in this debate. When the last Government left office, were police numbers going up or down? I believe in June 2024 they were lower than in March 2024. I have heard quite a lot of criticism of our Bill. Can he tell us how he would pay for extra police officers, as I have not heard many solutions?
Dr Mullan
I can point to a number of things that we would not have done. We would not have invested the same level of money in settling public sector strikes at above-inflation pay rises. We would not have given train drivers what I think was a £7,000 pay rise. There are many different ways we would have spent the money. Police numbers ebb and flow, but the hon. Lady talks about the narrative of what we achieved in government; we achieved the highest ever number of police officers.
With the potential of fewer officers, we inevitably create greater risk, making it easier for the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to avoid detection and confrontation. If the Government are serious about reducing antisocial behaviour, they must ensure that their choices do not result in further cuts to police numbers. If they do not, their pilots and plans will not make the difference that our approaches were making and all our residents will be let down as a result.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and am very interested to hear of his role as a volunteer police officer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all the Members who have spoken passionately about their constituency and made reference to the antisocial behaviour blighting their areas, which needs to be dealt with.
I am a member of the group of MPs who represent the east of England, so I am pleased to respond to the debate as the Minister. I have direct knowledge and experience as an east of England MP. My hon. Friend made a number of important points in her excellent speech on antisocial behaviour. Like her, I pay tribute to the police and the work that they already do on antisocial behaviour in the east of England and all around the country. I will come to neighbourhood policing issues and the Government’s approach to them in a moment.
Today’s focus on the east of England has raised a number of specific local and regional aspects of the debate, and we have been fortunate to have a geographical spread across the east of England. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the role of social landlords and tackling antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) referred to the Young Futures programme and the need to engage with young people. He talked about the Thirst youth café, which he said was a good example of the work that goes on with young people.
I am pleased to confirm that we have a cross-departmental approach to working on the agenda around young people. Our safer streets mission is across Government and not just for the Home Office or DCMS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about problems that older people, pensioners and young children face and the menace of antisocial behaviour from vehicles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about dirt bikes and the noise, fear and no-go zones. She specifically asked about the need for neighbourhood policing and making sure that police forces act on what the Government ask them to do. I will talk about that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about not having any PCSOs in Norfolk. That was a decision taken by a previous Conservative PCC. It is interesting because in almost every other part of the country we know how important PCSOs are, and that they provide really important community-based policing.
The Government are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a rural crime strategy, recognising the particular issues that rural areas have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) referred to county lines and vulnerable children. He also spoke about his police ride-along, to see for himself the vital work they do in communities. I will say something about drugs in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) asked about respect orders and the fact that they will apply only to over-18-year-olds. We want to deal with young people who get into bother and engage in antisocial behaviour through our prevention partnerships. They need support and encouragement to do more positive things rather than engage in antisocial behaviour, but of course there are measures that can be brought in if they fail to engage.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), that memories in this place can get very clouded. The Liberal Democrats were part of the Government between 2010 and 2015 during the years of austerity when councils saw massive cuts to their budgets, which then resulted in cuts to youth services. I welcome that the Liberal Democrats are now talking about the need to invest in youth services, but we have to remember that when they were in government they were part of the decisions to slash public services.
I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has a slight case of amnesia about what has actually happened over the past 14 years, with massive cuts to policing. Over 20,000 experienced police officers were lost, as well as many police staff, over the 14-year period, though I recognise that at the end of that time there was a mad scramble to deal with the realisation that cutting police officers had big consequences for all our communities.
Dr Mullan
I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.
Dame Diana Johnson
The black hole that the previous Government left this Government to clear up is actually £22 billion. As a Minister who has been in post for nine months, I am very conscious that the whole area of prevention was slashed under previous Conservative Governments, and we are now reaping the consequences. One of my hon. Friends referred to the prison population and the fact that preventive measures were not available; now we see what that actually means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned a number of ways in which antisocial behaviour manifests itself at the local level in her constituency, including fly-tipping, littering, loud music and nuisance neighbours. She talked about derelict sites being set on fire, toilets being vandalised, and parking generally being used in an antisocial way. I share her concerns regarding all those examples, which are yet more evidence of the damage and distress caused by antisocial behaviour and the need to tackle it as a priority. ASB is especially damaging when it occurs around people’s homes and the places they visit daily in their communities. It is not merely a nuisance; it has devastating consequences, corroding people’s freedom, damaging their mental health and ultimately undermining their sense of hope and home.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood officers and whether the funding package provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk’s streets. The Government have committed to restore neighbourhood policing, which includes putting thousands more uniformed officers on the beat in neighbourhoods up and down the country, including in the east of England—visible and in all our communities, rural and urban. We have made £200 million available to forces in England and Wales for the next financial year beginning in April to support the first steps in delivering those 13,000 neighbourhood personnel. Every part of England and Wales needs to benefit from that pledge.
Our approach to delivery in 2025-26, which will be year one of a four year programme, is designed to deliver an initial increase in the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and varied crime demands. That means that the precise workforce mix will be a locally made decision, including in Norfolk. That major investment supports the commitment to make the country’s streets safer, and reflects the scale of the challenge that many forces face and the Government’s determination to address it. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the PCC in Norfolk, Sarah Taylor, and the Labour council for the work that they are doing. It is crucial that police and partner agencies listen to the experiences of their communities and of victims.
Jen Craft
The Minister speaks about the excellent work of the police and crime commissioner in her area and in Norfolk; however, in Essex our police, fire and crime commissioner took the controversial decision to slash all 98 PCSOs—a decision he rowed back on after outcry from myself, my Labour colleagues and Opposition Members. Where does the Minister think we are in areas where police, fire and crime commissioners perhaps do not share our goal for neighbourhood and community policing? How does she see us working with them to encourage them that this is the way policing needs to go?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting point. On the specifics of that example, we were very clear when the provisional police settlement was announced before Christmas that we wanted to listen to what policing had to say about the figures. One of the issues that was raised was about neighbourhood policing. That is why we put £100 million in the provisional settlement, which we then decided to increase up to £200 million in the final settlement. That assisted PCCs, such as the one we are referring to, to say that the proposals put forward in December could change. We are a Government who want to listen to and work with policing, and PCCs of all complexions are clear that neighbourhood community policing is something that the Government are going to drive forward. I think that almost all of them want to work with us on that.
The antisocial behaviour case review is an issue that needs to get a bit more attention. This is a tool—a safety net—that can support victims of persistent ASB to ensure that action is taken, by giving those victims the ability to demand a formal case review to determine whether further action can be taken. The Victims’ Commissioner has talked a lot about it, and wants to ensure that everyone is aware that they can ask for a review if they do not feel they are getting help from the statutory agencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned antisocial driving and speeding, which I and many other hon. Members spoke about extensively in a Westminster Hall debate last week. The Crime and Policing Bill, which was debated yesterday in the main Chamber, will give the police greater powers to immediately seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner, without having first to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allow police to put an immediate stop to offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
I was particularly saddened to hear my hon. Friend’s examples of staff needing extra support to deal with antisocial behaviour in libraries. No one should face that kind of abuse in their workplace, especially not in a place set up to help the public. She also spoke about the public resources being spent on repairing vandalised property and fire crews attending arson. That is precisely why we are determined to intervene early to prevent young people in particular from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, and to put tough measures in place to stop persistent adult perpetrators of ASB.
Sadly, the sort of incidents that my hon. Friend and many others spoke about are happening in lots of areas of the country, so I want to touch on the national context. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour takes many forms: off-road bikes, nuisance neighbours, unruly gangs roaming the streets and creating intimidation and fear, or any other manifestation of this menace. It causes distress and misery in all our communities. The impact on decent, law-abiding people is undeniable: they are left feeling isolated and frightened at home, in their neighbourhoods or in their town centres. As we have heard, the enjoyment of parks and other public spaces is affected.
I have said this before, but fundamentally this issue comes down to respect—respect for our laws, our fellow citizens and our expectations as a society. None of us can accept a situation in which the actions of a selfish few blight the lives of others, but that is happening too often and in too many places. It needs to stop.
The response to antisocial behaviour has been weak and ineffective for too many years, and this Government are determined to put that right. As part of our plan for change, we are delivering a wide-ranging safer streets mission. A central part of that mission is tackling antisocial behaviour, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response, alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators. We are committed to restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
I think that the shadow Minister—obviously he is not the shadow Policing Minister—
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am sure he is doing his best. I would say to him that, over 14 years, the previous Conservative Government removed targets in the Home Office and removed the accountability structures that the Home Office should have set in place. We are going to have a performance framework in the Home Office so that we can hold police forces to account—something that was dismantled under his Government.
To add to that point, over the last decade, we have seen that decline in neighbourhood policing to such an extent that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been damaged. Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model. It is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe, and the public rightly expect their neighbourhood police to be visible, proactive, and accessible. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore those patrols to town centres and ensure that every community has a named neighbourhood officer to turn to.
Those working on the ground are best placed to understand what is driving antisocial behaviour in their areas and the impact it is having, and to determine the appropriate response. That goes to the point that hon. Member for Broxbourne raised about housing associations and their ability to use the law to tackle antisocial behaviour in housing. I believe that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. The Government will ensure that police, local authorities, housing providers and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour.
We will put that right—we have discussed this already—by introducing respect orders. Under these new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions such as bans on entering the areas where they have been behaving antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order could also face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially to ensure they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales, and this will be supported by a dedicated lead officer in every force working with communities to develop a local antisocial behaviour action plan.
Practitioners and antisocial behaviour organisations have also asked for additional changes, to enhance the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and improve the tools that local agencies have at their disposal to tackle antisocial behaviour. These changes include extending the maximum time limit for dispersal directions from 48 to 72 hours, increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices for breaches of community protection notices and public spaces protection orders from £100 to £500, and extending the power to issue a closure notice to registered social housing providers, among others.
We will also introduce a duty for key relevant agencies, including local authorities and housing providers, to report ASB data to the Government. Following commencement of the Crime and Policing Bill, regulations will be laid to specify which data the relevant agencies should provide, and the form and regularity of submission. This change will give the Government a clearer picture of local ASB and how the powers are being used by local agencies, which will inform future local and national activity. This measure will close a key evidence gap to ensure a strong and comprehensive national picture of ASB incidents and interventions. These changes are long overdue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford raised the Young Futures programme. We are very clear that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must work in a multi-agency way to reduce ASB and make communities safer. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime. An essential part of achieving this will be the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and Young Futures prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier to ensure that vulnerable children are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities, through the provision of open access to, for example, mental health and careers support.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister mentions a multi-agency approach. I think the public get frustrated with us when we have meeting after meeting about the same issue. What assurances can she give us that this multi-agency approach will lead to action taken on the ground to solve some of this antisocial behaviour in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very focused on delivery. Of course we want partner agencies to all be sitting around the table, but we want them to deliver, and that is why, for example, we are putting additional funding into neighbourhood policing, to ensure that there is a local presence. We are bringing in respect orders. We have introduced these new measures so that we can see what is working and where there may be problems that we need to address in a different way.
I want to mention shop theft, because a number of hon. Members also mentioned it. We know that it has a huge impact on town centres, where many small and independent businesses trade, and it is at record high levels and continues to increase at an unacceptable rate. In the last two years before the general election, shop theft went up by 60%, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shopworkers. It is damaging business and hurting communities. It is vital that people feel safe in their local shops and in their local areas.
The police have given a commitment in the retail crime action plan to prioritise attendance where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, or where evidence needs to be secured by police personnel. Although retailers have indicated early positive outcomes, there is much more to do.
As set out in the Crime and Policing Bill, we will end the effective immunity, introduced by the previous Government, that was granted to the low-level shop theft of goods worth less than £200, to end the perception that those committing low-value shop theft will escape punishment.
We are also introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in shops. Everybody has a right to feel safe at work. The new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine. However, as a reflection of the need for us to take a tough stance, with meaningful criminal justice consequences, the offence will also come with a presumption that a court will apply a criminal behaviour order. This will prohibit the offender from doing anything described in the order, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises.
I also wanted to mention drugs. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour, and go after the gangs luring young people into violence and crime.
The issue of county lines was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. I say to him that there has been some really excellent work to try to smash county lines; it is work that this Government will continue and are committed to. Since July 2024, over 400 county lines have been closed and there have been hundreds of arrests, which is very positive.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for securing this debate today; I am grateful to her and to everyone who has contributed to it. Antisocial behaviour plagues the lives of all those it affects. It is a serious threat and under this Government it will be dealt with as such, in the east of England and everywhere else.
Alice Macdonald
I thank the hon. Members for their contributions today and the Minister for her very full response.
For me, there are three key messages. First, prevention is key—we have to tackle the underlying causes—but we also need strong powers that empower local communities to take action. Thirdly, we are all very proud of our communities, and we want to work with them to make sure they become even better than they already are.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered anti-social behaviour in the East of England.
Gender Critical Beliefs: Equality Act 2010
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gender critical beliefs and the Equality Act 2010.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Equality Act, passed by a Labour Government in 2010, protects people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Act has a commendable objective: to prevent people from acting on their prejudices and disagreements in a way that results in the discriminatory treatment of others. It exists not to eliminate difference or ensure conformity, but to foster good relations and tolerance between different groups.
Sometimes rights clash. Very few examples of that clash have played out as publicly and discordantly as that between sex and gender identity: that is, the rights of biological women, and sometimes men, and the rights of those who change their social gender to transition to women. Significant feminist gains have been made in policy and law since the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s. Those gains include recognition of specific rights and services for women on the basis of their sex, be that in hospital wards, prisons, rape services, domestic abuse shelters, lesbian dating sites and clubs, women’s health organisations and women’s sports teams—spaces that meet our specific requirements as women. Those gains are being eroded by the blind acceptance by some, including policy makers in this place, that anybody who identifies as a woman de facto becomes one. At a time when male violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in the UK, women’s single-sex spaces could not be more important.
Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits. It is that pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her stance, courage and wise words. Does she agree that respect is a two-way street? Although we should respect someone’s belief, we have been edging towards a place where biblical questioning of a view is taken as an offence. I treasure, as the hon. Lady does, biblical beliefs. I fight for anyone to live their faith in so far as it does not lead to harm or injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should also take that approach?
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I agree that all of those beliefs should be—and are—protected under the law.
Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits, and it is the pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination. They are essential values in a pluralistic democracy where we can acknowledge, navigate and respect our differences. Yet a tendency has arisen in polarised debates, particularly around sex and gender, to treat holding a belief opposing one’s own as not merely a point of disagreement, but a moral defect in the person with whom one disagrees.
That has been clearly demonstrated in the terms that have been used for women who think that our biological sex matters, that it is a material reality that cannot be changed and is entirely different from gender identity—that is, gender-critical women like me. Nasty, puerile terms, many unrepeatable in this place but repeated ad infinitum across social media, such as bigot, Nazi, fascist and TERF—trans-exclusionary radical feminist—are just some examples.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware of the case of my constituent, Roz Adams, who was employed as a counsellor and support worker at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. She was investigated for potentially transphobic views, having asked how she would respond to a woman service-user who asked the sex of a support worker who identified as non-binary. Does the hon. Member agree that targeting women with gender critical views in turn targets women advocating for women’s services, especially for women survivors of rape and sexual assault?
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member so much for raising that case. It shocked and peaked quite a lot of people that just asking for single-sex services when they are more vital than ever got Roz Adams into so much hot water. It is absolutely unbelievable, and good luck to her in her fight.
Ironically, the name calling—the extreme, nasty and degrading names used for women and sometimes men who do not accept that biological men can be women—is often under the guise of “being kind”. Gender critical women are frequently shut down, told to be quiet, or told that it is not right to use accurate language to describe our bodies. Words and language matter, and material reality matters infinitely. There are situations where sex matters and the rights of women and girls must take precedence. Women and girls must be able to use language to describe our experiences and not be persecuted for causing offence or distress.
To believe in women’s sex-based rights and publicly advocate for them results in being readily labelled as hateful or transphobic. However, I am gender critical because I am a feminist and care deeply about the rights of women and girls. I do not seek to destroy the rights of trans-identifying people or any other group, and never have done. My sex-based rights as a woman have nothing to do with those other groups of people.
Gender critical beliefs are legally protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, following the Forstater employment tribunal case in 2021. The tribunal found that Maya Forstater’s beliefs, which she sincerely holds, are widely shared, based on fact, and are reflective of the law of the land, yet despite that judgment, in the four years since there has been an unprecedented run—a steady stream—of similar high-profile and costly employment tribunal cases involving gender critical beliefs that point to a problem that many in this place refuse to acknowledge, including, I am afraid, the Minister responding to this debate.
The normalisation of visible hostility towards anyone expressing widely held gender critical beliefs, even on our own green Benches, has been framed as an expression of solidarity with trans and non-binary people. Those within organisations that sign up to expensive re-education programmes, many of which misrepresent the law, and diktats on all employees signing off emails with pronouns, legitimise the constant, passive-aggressive and soft—or even aggressive and open—bullying of those who refuse to comply.
Those who disagree with gender critical beliefs routinely stigmatise women like me as bigoted, a view that arises from a total misunderstanding of what our beliefs are or the motivations of many of those who share them. The social and financial costs of voicing gender critical beliefs, and of challenging assumptions in their workplace, mean that many are afraid and feel they cannot afford to speak up. Still, day after day people who raise concerns about boundaries around single-sex spaces such as changing rooms are being disciplined, dismissed, and hounded from their workplaces.
Two such cases currently attracting huge attention are those of the Darlington nurses and the Fife nurse, Sandie Peggie. Their tribunals have brought the clash of rights into sharp relief. Few people reading that when adult female nurses challenged their employers to stop biological men changing in the women’s changing room could believe that they were disciplined. I have yet to speak to a single British voter who believes that a man should have whatever access he desires to spaces where women are getting dressed or undressed for work. .
Our evidence base is limited, as academics are afraid to research this area for fear of ending up hounded out of their jobs, as academics Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Laura Favaro and many others have been. None the less, the body of evidence is growing. In its rapid evidence review on harassment and censorship to inform the Khan review published in March last year, More in Common found significant anecdotal evidence of harassment faced by groups of gender critical activists. Gender critical people face high levels of harassment in their everyday lives, leading to self-censorship on a scale that should alarm anyone who believes in liberal democracy—including gender critical MPs who have yet to speak up in public.
Gender critical people face severe consequences for engaging in the debate, ranging from social ostracization to loss of employment and livelihood, all for holding three core beliefs: that women—adult human females—are materially definable as a class of human being; that women are culturally, legislatively and politically important, with our own set of needs, rights and concerns; and that women have the right to meet and discuss freely that which affects our lives profoundly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Lady’s bravery in standing up for what she believes in. Does she agree with me that there is a wider political danger from this form of indoctrination and extremism about gender and sex, which is that if the only people in politics who are prepared to speak out about it are from extreme right-wing movements, and mainstream politicians are too afraid to say anything, it pushes ordinary people in the direction of political extremes?
Rosie Duffield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much for raising that important point. Just for speaking up, I, a left-wing member of the Labour party, have been called a Reform member and all kinds of names, and it has been suggested that I join a right-wing party, yet an awful lot of the articles I read agreeing with me are in the Morning Star. People do not really listen to the ideology behind our beliefs and why we speak up for the rights of working women, which is what the Labour party was founded to do.
We have a duty in this place to ensure that people who hold gender critical beliefs are given the respect they are entitled to. We need to find a workable solution that respects everyone’s beliefs and protected characteristics. I finish by paying tribute to the brave and incredible women—and some men—who know that only women have a cervix and who have stood up to those hounding them at great personal and financial risk to themselves: Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Meade, Roz Adams, Denise Fahmy, Eleanor Frances, Almut Gadow, Laura Favaro, Amelia Sparrow, Jenny Lindsay, Kathleen Stock, Rosie Kay, Selina Todd, Rosa Freedman, Lizzy Pitt and my dearest TERF friends Jo Rowling, Suzanne Moore and supreme shero pioneer Julie Bindel. Those women are just the tip of the iceberg.
I was elected on a manifesto pledge to make the country work for working people. These are working people who are being persecuted for their legal and respectable beliefs. They continue to be let down by cowardly leadership. I have been hounded, harassed, sidelined and briefed against by a party now in government. It is time the Government got to grips with this issue, perhaps by following the lead of the incredibly brave women I have referenced here and the unsung foot soldiers who fight for women’s rights in the workplace the world over.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start by thanking the hon. Member for raising the issues that she has raised this afternoon. I am going to call it more of a discussion than a debate, because I think the purpose of this session is to explore how we can express our beliefs freely, frankly and respectfully, upholding our shared values of tolerance and freedom of speech.
Championing freedom of expression is critical, even when beliefs are varied or opposing. To be protected under the Equality Act, a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than just an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour. In case law, gender critical beliefs have been recognised as such, which this Government acknowledge and respect. The protection of philosophical belief under the Equality Act is one of the foundations of freedom of expression, ensuring that individuals can hold and express deeply held convictions without fear of discrimination, harassment or victimisation. This protection creates space for diverse beliefs in a democratic society. We must not forget that in many countries across the world, such protections do not exist. We should not take them for granted and must continue to view freedom of expression as a right, not a privilege.
We must strive to protect freedom of expression for all, whether we agree or disagree, because we should challenge, probe and inquire, not shut down or silence. We will of course always protect the right not to be discriminated against, harassed or victimised.
The Equality Act prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of a number of characteristics, including a person’s religion, belief, sex, sexual orientation or gender reassignment. That is why the Act is crucial in protecting us all and why we are proud to uphold it. Given the polarisation of belief on sex and gender issues, as well as the disagreement and discomfort such matters can provoke, I am glad that the hon. Member for Canterbury has been measured, considered and respectful, promoting a tone and quality of discussion that refuses to lower itself to the politics of division and anxiety. Let us carry that example forward beyond this Chamber.
It is important that we continue to protect freedom of expression for all, and the hon. Member has set out some examples where the law has protected that freedom, but we must try to support people’s freedom of expression in the first place rather than simply relying on the courts.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, on freedom of expression and those protected characteristics, we must do all that we can within policy to avoid a hierarchy where some of those protected characteristics are inadvertently—or perhaps at times deliberately—considered to be more important than others, and that it is essential that we keep a level playing field within that legislation?
Dame Nia Griffith
These are very tricky issues, and sensible discussion of them, rather than polarisation, is the way forward. We must remember that we have a collective responsibility to express our beliefs respectfully. By consistently adopting that approach, we can all help to lower the temperature of discussions about sex and gender issues, fostering a more positive and inclusive environment where everyone can contribute without fear of being cancelled or silenced.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that in recent years being respectful of others’ views has meant silencing those who have gender critical beliefs? That continues to be the case, although we see some signs of the tide turning. Does she agree that it is up to this Labour Government to ensure that those views are genuinely respected, rather than silencing those with gender critical views?
Dame Nia Griffith
That is exactly what I have been explaining with regards to the Equality Act and respect for all established views, including gender critical views. We want to make sure that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; that is why it is important that we uphold the Equality Act and provide everybody with the reassurance that it protects them against unlawful discrimination and harassment.
It is perhaps important to dwell for a moment on what is considered harassment under the Equality Act. Free speech is protected when it is lawful, but harassment is behaviour that the law specifically defines as unlawful in certain situations, such as the workplace. Harassment is not simply a case of taking offence; there is a seriousness threshold, and conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the definition of harassment. Harassment is a serious matter, involving being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types, as set out in the Equality Act, which
“has the purpose or effect”
of violating the employee’s dignity or of
“creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee.
Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated, hence our provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to keep workers safe from harassment.
Establishing those parameters is essential for maintaining the healthy and respectful standards of discussion that I just mentioned. It is also important to highlight that these discussions affect real people, their communities, their careers and their families. Therefore, as we exercise our freedom of expression, let us do so with humanity. We hold our beliefs everywhere we go, which often means that we express them in different places, including at work. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced guidance on belief as a protected characteristic, and we would expect employers to refer to that before taking action in a given case.
We know that single-sex services are important to people for many different reasons. For example, single-sex services can provide safety and comfort, especially for those who have previously had negative experiences using mixed-sex services. Everyone should be able to access specialist services and everyday facilities that meet their needs while protecting their privacy, dignity and safety. However, as outlined by various Ministers in this Government, there will be circumstances where certain groups need to be excluded from single-sex services and facilities to ensure the best outcomes for users—safety, dignity, fairness and privacy, to name a few.
That is why we are proud to uphold the Equality Act, which already gives providers the flexibility to deliver single-sex services exclusively for those of the same biological sex where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister will be aware that the last Conservative manifesto committed to reforming the Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces and services for women and girls, and in particular to listening to the voices of those women across the country. The Labour Government have indicated periodically that they agree with that, but will they commit to taking action—and, if so, when?
Dame Nia Griffith
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that there needs to be some clarification on guidance. She will be well aware that the last Government put out a call for evidence, asking people to provide examples of how the Equality Act is being interpreted. The Act sets out that providers have the right to restrict the use of services, including toilets and women’s refuges, on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in circumstances where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
We are proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women. We will continue to support the use of its single-sex exceptions by providers. It is vital that service providers understand the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act and feel confident using them. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is guidance in place that gives service providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how to lawfully apply single-sex exceptions. We will be setting out our next steps on that work in due course.
As hon. Members will know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on separate and single-sex services. It has recently concluded its consultation on its draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister mentioned the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She has mentioned several times the need for understanding and empathy, to allow space for people to have various views. Does she agree that that should be shared by the likes of the Commission and other bodies, and that it is their responsibility to carry out their functions and ensure that people know that they have an empathetic hearing within such bodies, so that they are not seen as being opposed to the views of gender critical people?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. The Commission and other bodies have a very responsible position to interpret and ensure that, where there are potential conflicts between the different protected characteristics, those are dealt with in a sympathetic and fair manner.
We will be considering the Commission’s proposals on its updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations, and Ministers will make a decision whether to approve them after the final draft of the code has been submitted. The previous Government put out a call for input on single-sex spaces guidance, and over 400 policy and guidance documents that fitted the response criteria were submitted. After reviewing these examples, it was found that the vast majority did not wrongly state or suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender. In fact, only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.
As the independent regulator of the Equality Act, the EHRC is the appropriate body to ensure that this question is looked into in more detail, and it has the ability to follow up directly with organisations if necessary. We are in the process of sharing all the submissions that met the criteria of the previous Government’s call for input on single-sex spaces guidance so that the EHRC can review them. Although guidance does exist, including from the EHRC, the result of this call for input suggests that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about how the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act operate. Moving forward, we will explore the best ways in which we can give providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how they can lawfully apply its single-sex exceptions.
Our beliefs have always played a fundamental role in shaping our identity, purpose and direction in life. At times we share those beliefs with others, fostering a sense of unity and belonging; at other times our beliefs may differ, leading to discord. However, discord does not have to propagate hatred. Progress hinges on our ability to respect different beliefs even when they challenge us. We must cultivate a culture of safety, one that encourages open expression without fear of discrimination or harassment, rather than a culture of silence.
While our beliefs matter, it is equally important to look beyond them and recognise the shared values of tolerance, respect and fair-mindedness that connect us. As we move forward, let us hold on to those values and remain vigilant against attempts to erode them. True progress and equality lie not just in defending our own beliefs, but in upholding the principles that allow all voices to be heard with dignity and respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian
peace.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. One of the most violent cycles of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in history, the largest since 1973, has drawn to a halt and it is now critical that we redouble our efforts to make this a lasting peace. The atrocities and massive loss of life we have seen on and since 7 October cannot happen again. We must do all we can to prevent that, and innocent civilians must be allowed to live their lives without fear.
The recent news has been packed with talk of various reconstruction plans and Government summits, but the current debate is neglected and a vital pathway to peace—that is, the involvement of Israeli and Palestinian civil society. The international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace is at its core an initiative designed to give agency to those often overlooked grassroots communities of Israel and Palestine. It plans to mobilise international investment in regional peacebuilding projects and, in doing so, will tackle unaddressed drivers of this terrible conflict. That is why the Government’s commitment to the fund has been such a groundbreaking move and why our continued support will be critical.
Political discussion about the conflict is often fixated on the short-term weather of the situation, day-to-day events and great tragedy in detail, but sometimes we neglect the climate, the long-term trends and initiatives that will bring us meaningfully closer to peace. Therefore, I want today’s debate, and my intention is, to shift our political priorities to longer term, to looking at how we can create the space in the hearts and minds of all affected communities to make peace a possibility.
Of course, how we accomplish that invites a great deal of discussion, particularly in the light of our Government’s necessary and timely commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. In this era of more limited resources being available, we need to be especially sure that the budget we do have is going towards projects that are value for money in achieving security abroad, because security abroad means safety at home, and the British taxpayer must see those returns many times over. I invite other Members today to make the case for why the international fund could satisfy that requirement.
One great advantage of the fund is the opportunity that it presents for British leadership abroad. The Prime Minister has recently shown what Britain can look like as a leading force for good on the international stage. Seizing the initiative on civil society reconciliation in Israel and Palestine by championing the fund would be yet another demonstration of that power in a notably resource-efficient way. I hope that we have the courage to act and to keep the momentum of recent successes in the region going. As the examples of Syria and Lebanon show, political changes can occur suddenly and unexpectedly. Currently, however, these people and nations are suffering unimaginable pain and trauma. Innocent Palestinians have suffered the catastrophic loss of their loved ones, homes and livelihoods; and at the same time in Israel the images of the hostages are burned into the national consciousness, and the scars of 7 October will be felt for generations to come.
Therefore, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I ask that Members allow accounts from victims to always be heard. I personally have spoken with the families of hostages, and having witnessed such pain at first hand, I make clear my view that anyone who considers themselves to be on the side of peace should respect the testimony of innocents on both sides. This is not a zero-sum game. Reconciliation will take time, but history has told us that it is the only route to a lasting peace.
History has much to teach us in the pursuit of peace. In the 1980s and 1990s, Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine were both global symbols of intercommunal violence, but today they look very different from each other. The enduring relief that the Good Friday agreement brought to the people of Northern Ireland has sadly not been shared in Israel and Palestine. There are many explanations for those differing outcomes that I am sure other Members will draw attention to, but I will note that although negotiations on the make-up of the middle east often began and stayed at the level of Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders, the International Fund for Ireland ensured that as many people as possible were given a seat at the table and a stake in the future.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is talking very eloquently about history and the need for grassroots history to be reflected. Does he agree that there has been a strong history of co-operation and co-operatives in the middle east? Is he aware of the fact that the British Co-operative Group has been working hard, with the Co-operative party, on tangible measures to support peace and economic development, including the Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom peace village? Do we need to see more of these initiatives in the future, and can the fund be a way of achieving that?
Steve Yemm
I agree that co-operatives and co-operation are incredibly important with regard to this fund and that we lose sight at our peril of the value of any civil society actors, including co-operatives. We recall that the fund in Northern Ireland gave everybody a seat at the table, a say in their future. The International Fund for Ireland may well have been the great unsung hero of the peace process. We therefore have in recent memory living proof that a plan for civil society reconciliation, backed by an international fund, can succeed where high-level talks may fail.
In my opinion, no one is more fit for this task than the Labour Government. Our party has a long and storied history in peacemaking, Northern Ireland being just one example of that. Equally, I am eager that we build a consensus on the fund across the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Steve Yemm
Very briefly, and this will be the final intervention on me, I am afraid.
Mr Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I just have a word of caution for him on the comparison between the middle east and Northern Ireland. Yes, the International Fund for Ireland made a difference, but the scale of the schism in the middle east caused by 7 October and the scale of the rebuild that will be required in Gaza are such that a fund many times greater than the IFI will be needed to make any meaningful difference in the middle east.
Steve Yemm
I very much agree that we need to address the scale of the issue—certainly. That is why it is very important that we build consensus on this issue across the House, and I welcome contributions from Members of all parties who are genuinely interested in finding a resolution.
Democracy is one of the strongest tools that we have in the quest for peace, not just in ensuring that our Government do their part, but in giving disenfranchised people a say in their future. We saw that clearly in Ireland, where the promise that people could express their political desires and views with a ballot in their hand instead of a rifle was key to tackling violent extremism.
I have personally engaged with Israel’s democratic tradition in my recent meetings with Yair Golan, the leader of the opposition Democrats party. He is an inspiring man who has put his life on the line, and he has been a clear and consistent voice for peace and security. I also welcome Israel’s continued engagement with the UK, but democracy will not be built and maintained unless there is a strong coalition of ordinary people and communities to safeguard it. Peacebuilding is about not just summits and large state initiatives, but the day-to-day work of people on the ground doing their utmost to set the conditions for the ending of hostilities.
We know that the Government are ultimately interested in peace in the middle east and are taking a long-term view to achieve that end. We have seen momentum build among G7 countries behind an international fund. I want to be clear that that is the crux of today’s debate. This is not about politicking, theatre or gestures. I secured the debate because I am genuinely interested in finding long-term solutions and achieving the best outcomes in the light of the realities that we face. The UK has the opportunity to take action and provide leadership. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the fund to date and I am confident that we can build on that in the immediate future. As I draw my speech to a close, I invite Members on both sides of the House to use this opportunity to make suggestions to the Minister about how the Government and the Foreign Office might move this crucial initiative forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of Members wish to speak and I will begin to call the Front Benchers no later than eight minutes past 5, so at the moment we are looking at roughly two minutes for each speech, but it may even be less than that. I will not waste any more time—I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I commend the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for setting the scene so well.
It is important that we focus on the most innocent victims of this enduring conflict—the children. Their futures are being compromised by the ongoing violence around them, and I pray every day that they see a future for themselves and for one another. For Israeli children, especially those living in border towns such as Sderot, which has been known as the bomb shelter capital of the world for more than 25 years, and in other communities within range of regular Hamas missile fire, life is lived under constant threat of attack. These children go to school knowing that at any moment a missile could be launched at them. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and their education and daily life are continually disrupted by air raid sirens, evacuations and nights spent in bomb shelters.
At the same time, the children of Gaza are also being denied their hopes and dreams. Their education has been disrupted because their schools have been systematically used by Hamas and other terrorist organisations as military installations. Too many of these children grow up being indoctrinated into extremist ideologies, rather than hearing the promise of peace. If we are to foster a generation that chooses peace over war, we must ensure that children on both sides have access to education that is free from the toxic legacies of violence and hatred. This is where an international fund could play a role. It could invest in educational programmes to promote and instil co-existence, tolerance and economic unity.
Any such fund must be administered with transparency and accountability. Given what we already know about the politicised nature of the many NGOs operating in the region, it is very important that funds are not diverted towards movements that do not work towards peace. The foundation of that work must be a democratic Gaza, free from the influence of Hamas terrorism, and a complete rejection of Hamas’ vision of the destruction of the state of Israel.
Parents in Gaza and Israel are exhausted from burying children and loved ones. Children, by their very nature, are the future. If we believe in a future where Israeli and Gazan children can grow up without fear of one another, we need decisive action. An international fund, properly administered and targeted, has the potential to create the conditions for a sustainable peace, with a secure and safe future for all children in the region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I will extend the time limit to two and a half minutes. I will leave it as voluntary, but if hon. Members do not keep to it I will impose it.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate.
As a supporter of a two-state solution to achieve an independent state of Palestine and a secure Israel, I welcome the opportunity to further our commitment to forming an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace to build civil society and to encourage reconciliation.
I am proud that before being elected, I worked for 13 years as the director of an organisation called We Believe in Israel. However, it was not just a pro-Israel organisation; it was committed to a two-state solution and national self-determination for both peoples, Jews and Palestinians. That role means that I have travelled many times to both Israel and the west bank. I have seen many examples of magnificent work to promote peace and co-existence, and I have met many inspiring Israeli and Palestinian voices for peace. An example of those is the organisation Roots, which is a grassroots movement for
“understanding, non-violence and transformation among Israelis and Palestinians”.
It also means that the appalling terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent dreadful war do not just relate to places that I have only seen on the news; they have affected communities and families that I have visited and met. One of the things I find most painful is that the communities that bore the brunt of the attacks on 7 October were communities that were deeply committed to co-existence and to helping their neighbours in Gaza. I could say many more things about the situation, both as it was on 6 October and as it has transpired after 7 October, but because of the limited time that we have and the need to enable more people to participate in the debate, I will cut short what I was going to say.
We need to launch a diplomatic process towards ending the conflict, but it cannot just be a top-level diplomatic process between leaders; it must involve a grassroots diplomatic and co-existence process that marginalises the enemies of peace with a new strategy. We need to find organisations like Roots that bring together Israelis and Palestinians and build genuine understanding between them, that educate communities away from the ideologies and ideas of violence and bring them towards the ideas of peace and co-existence. We need to provide all the support that we can to those organisations that are struggling to build a sustainable, peaceful middle east.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the thousands of Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders, some of whom are here with us today. I thank them for their tireless and inspirational work, and the Alliance for Middle East Peace for all it does to give them a voice. They give us hope at a time when it is in such short supply. The past 18 months have been the most painful for the people of Israel and Palestine—on 7 October the worst massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust, death and destruction in Gaza on an intolerable scale, and the torment of hostages held in chains for more than 500 days.
The ceasefire must continue to hold, the hostages taken by Hamas must be unconditionally released, and desperately needed aid must be allowed to reach innocent Gazans. Out of the rubble of the conflict, we must vow to create the conditions for peace. Our goal has to be a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestine.
How do we get there? First, we have to learn the lessons from the past. For decades, diplomats and politicians have invested countless hours in trying to achieve peace from the top down. Each effort ultimately failed. Why? Because neither community felt that it had a real partner for peace. Without public support, even well-intentioned leaders cannot impose a lasting peace from the top down. We know from conflicts such as the one in Northern Ireland, most notably, that diplomacy can make a lasting difference, not just as a result of a top-down approach but from a bottom-up approach.
I think of Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow, a pioneering summer school programme that has supported more than 800 Israeli and Palestinian young adults in learning computer science, social entrepreneurship and leadership skills. MEET is just one of hundreds of such programmes that have emerged since the signing of the Oslo accords. We know that they work. Just look at the data: 80% of participants in a dialogue project were more willing to work for peace, 71% reported more trust and empathy for the other, and 77% had a greater belief that reconciliation is possible.
I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership. He has consistently supported that different path and his commitment in December to convene a summit in support of civil society peacebuilding is a vital first step. The United Kingdom has a unique opportunity: our experience of peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, our world-leading development expertise and the UK’s convening power mean that this is an area in which we can provide real leadership. When speaking about why the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts did not succeed in 2014, former US Secretary of State John Kerry said,
“the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low.”
Will the Minister provide an update on the preparations for the United Kingdom’s summit in support of peacebuilding?
With the UK’s support in building peace from the bottom up by tackling the fear and mistrust that has only grown since 7 October, we stand a chance of learning the lessons of the past and making sure that the next effort at top-down diplomacy succeeds. We owe it to the people of Israel and Palestine.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I refer hon. Members to my registered interests.
I strongly welcome the ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages—including the British hostage Emily Damari—and the increased flow of aid into the region, which must continue. The ceasefire undoubtedly marks a crucial moment of relief after 17 months of devastating conflict started by the massacre committed by Hamas on 7 October. Too many have lost their lives and countless others have been displaced, injured or traumatised. I know that the UK Government, in partnership with their allies, will do everything possible to ensure that the ceasefire holds but we must look to the long-term, and a route towards a two-state solution.
The path to peace runs primarily through political resolutions, political will, and reaching a mutual understanding of the rights and freedoms that should be afforded to both Israelis and Palestinians, but we know that civil society organisations can also play a crucial role. In fact, the political route to peace is made easier if attitudes on the ground shift.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have recently heard about the Arab summit contributing $53 billion to support redevelopment and restructuring within the Gaza strip. Does the hon. Member agree that recognising the state of Palestine first, and then discussing funding packages, would prevent the nonsense that we constantly hear, from Trump and others, about the riviera?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I believe that we cannot lose sight of the need for a two-state solution—for Palestine to exist alongside Israel. That is deeply important and it is the way forward in the region.
We know that civil society organisations shape attitudes on the ground, and that is crucial. Even now, they are integral to resolving the conflict, with programmes that create new ideas, leaders and political dynamics, fostering mutual understanding and advocacy. I met civil society organisations when I visited the region and it was they who gave me the deepest sense of hope that we could find a way forward, and a way towards peace.
I conclude by saying that I hope the UK will continue to build on the Prime Minister’s pledges of support for the international fund, which have shown our commitment. Will the Minister further seize the initiative next week by ensuring that the matter of the fund is raised at the meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers in Canada?
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this debate. He alluded to precedents and I want to talk about one, because the UK has been a trailblazer for peacebuilding in complex conflicts around the world, but most notably in Northern Ireland.
The attention of the world has naturally been drawn to the destruction and the suffering of the peoples of both Palestine and Israel since the devastating Hamas attacks and throughout the subsequent war. I believe that the UK has a unique contribution to make in the area of civil society and people-to-people peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine. In the mid-1980s, when a political peace process was non-existent, the international community decided to intervene at the grassroots level with the International Fund for Ireland. Expert effort was put into investing in civil society to create the social, economic and political foundations for peace. Twelve years later, the landscape in Northern Ireland was transformed, with genuine constituencies for peace. That allowed the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement. That model is one of the areas of peacebuilding in which we in the UK have unparalleled experience. Today, thanks to the tireless work of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, there is cross-party support for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Indeed, the precedent does not just show that the UK can take a leading role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but that a Labour Government are particularly well placed to do so. It was Jonathan Powell, who was the Downing Street chief of staff in the 1990s and is now the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, who led the Good Friday agreement talks. Because of its investment in civil society at a moment when peace seemed distant, he characterised the International Fund for Ireland as
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
Today, we have an opportunity to play a similar role in a similarly intractable conflict. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have indicated their intention to do so, most recently in December with the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Foreign Secretary will convene an inaugural meeting to discuss next steps with partners. I end by asking whether the Minister can provide us with an update on when the meeting in London will take place and on which partners will be involved. I also ask what plans the Government have to use next week’s G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Canada to raise the establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. It is unquestionable that this summit is an opportunity to make the real progress that I believe only a Labour Government can make in these circumstances.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate. Several decades ago, the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine bore strong parallels to each another. They both faced large-scale terrorist insurgencies with urban warfare tactics that had never been seen before, deeply polarised populations and horrific damage wrought on innocent lives. Most importantly, they shared the fact that many sceptics painted the fighting as the product of ancient and intractable religious disputes, and thus hand-waved away any prospects of peace. But today they look very different. Opposed interests on the island of Ireland now have a legitimate political channel and dialogue through the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, while conflicts between those on the territory of Israel and Palestine arguably reached their highest intensity in over half a century prior to the recent ceasefires.
Of course, each historical experience is unique, and it would be an oversimplification to take the comparison too far, but I believe we must always bear the Northern Irish example in mind in our approach to an international fund and wider peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine, especially considering our country’s first-hand experience of the disastrous consequences of unresolved conflict.
In particular, I propose two major ways that we stand to gain from thinking about the troubles. First, we can learn the lessons of the Irish peacebuilding experience. Although negotiations over Israel and Palestine, such as those that led to the Oslo accords, have been largely top down and sometimes entirely secret projects of men in smoke-filled rooms, the Good Friday agreement was far more inclusive, paying attention to left-out voices, the unconvinced women and the international community. Much of the credit for getting civil society engaged in Ireland must go to the International Fund for Ireland, which our own Jonathan Powell has called
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
Fact-finding visits to Northern Ireland by Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations found that the IFI’s strategic approach to funding—with an independent body, tight public-private donor co-ordination and field officers from the affected communities—made all the difference. Civil society was the glue that brought communities together and has continued to hold them together despite the increased uncertainty of recent years. Although I have to finish my speech due to the time limit, I want to acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the new fund would have to be considerably greater.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate. I support our Labour Government, who are taking a leading role in setting up an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, as envisaged by the Alliance for Middle East Peace and advocated by Labour Friends of Israel for almost a decade. In recent months, there have been hours of debate in this place about how the UK can best contribute towards peace in the middle east following the horrific scenes of death, destruction and suffering on 7 October and the subsequent war in Gaza.
After the last serious peace process failed in 2014, it was said that
“the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low.”
Today, trust is in even shorter supply and neither leadership is in a position or has a mindset to make the painful compromises that peace and a two-state solution will inevitably entail. That is a challenge for all of us who want to kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and it is a challenge that only such a bottom-up initiative, rooted not in the halls of power but in civil society, can seriously resolve. It is our job to change the lack of trust to build those constituencies for peace. This is a tried and tested model, as we saw in Northern Ireland. Jonathan Powell said it was
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
I saw the potential when I visited Israel and Palestine on such an initiative in July 2023. I met organisations and NGOs run on a shoestring that dedicate their work to providing spaces for Israelis and Palestinians to meet and work together outside the confines of conflict. EcoPeace, for example, brings together Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians to forge new and creative solutions to climate change in a region increasingly co-dependent on natural resources. I met young Palestinian activists in Ramallah who are working to train the next generation of political leaders for the long-awaited Palestinian Authority elections and a more democratically engaged and pluralistic Palestinian future. Supporting such civil society groups is how we can play our part in changing attitudes on the ground in Israel and Palestine. That is how we will build the trust necessary for genuine progress towards peace from the bottom up.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister announced in December that we will be convening a meeting with international partners to discuss how we can take forward the G7’s commitment to supporting civil society. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about these plans, including when the meeting will take place and which partners will be attending.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for organising this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Last month, I had the privilege to visit Israel and the west bank. We were unable to go to Gaza, but we visited area C of the west bank, where we saw a lot of Israeli settler violence and some of the demolitions in East Jerusalem. We also had the privilege of meeting some of the families of the hostages, as well as Aviva Siegel, who had the very difficult experience of leaving her husband behind when she was released.
In many ways, it is completely understandable that the trauma and suffering on both sides of the conflict have led to such a polarisation of views, which is reflected in the polls. We saw it in our conversations with members of the Knesset, where we heard extreme views on continuing the occupation for generations and justifying what Israel is doing on the west bank.
Other Members have spoken about the UK’s experience in Northern Ireland and how important that is to our positioning on the peacebuilding fund. We are lucky to have peacebuilding organisations working with us in the region, and I was very happy to speak to them this morning. The good work of ALLMEP is well known, and we should recognise that its work is being harmed by the United States Agency for International Development cuts of recent weeks. It is now important that the UK steps up to support these organisations.
I was pleased to see the Prime Minister’s commitment to this fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. I would like to hear more details from the Minister on when the next meeting will be. Will we use this week’s G7 meeting, which Jonathan Powell is attending, to announce more details of this fund? Also, will the Minister be happy to meet the APPG on conflict prevention to talk about more of our work in the region?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Decades of violence and displacement in Israel and Palestine have created psychological scars that will take generations to heal. For Israelis, the collective trauma of 7 October is still all too painful. Magen Inon is an Israeli peace activist whose parents were killed on 7 October, and he writes that
“it feels as if a flash flood of blood engulfs the landscape and my grief is one small branch caught in the current. Everyone I know from my childhood has a horror story to tell.”
Palestinians are reeling from the terrible destruction and loss of life in the Gaza strip, tying into a wider historical experience of displacement. This cannot be described as post-traumatic stress, because the trauma is ongoing. Gaza does not have “pre” and “post”.
The effects of trauma on peacebuilding cannot be overstated. Traumatised populations are likely to support violent and armed extremist groups. Trauma leads to a siege mentality and increased anger, and trauma means a continual drain on grassroots pressure for the ending of the conflict. It is vital that peacebuilding initiatives help to end these cycles of trauma and introduce a path towards healing and lasting peace.
The newly proposed international fund will help us to do that, and it is critical that we build momentum for it today. Civil organisations in Israel and Palestine are already working with people who are terribly traumatised, while living with their own personal traumas under the harsh daily realities they face. Each day, organisations such as Combatants for Peace, the Middle East Children’s Institute and the Holy Land Trust tackle the profound scars left by the cycles of war. The unified fund will deliver resource and support to make these small-scale initiatives society-wide, to eradicate psychological drivers of conflict, and to pave the way to healing.
I will close with Magen Inon’s words:
“Our shared future is based on the belief that all human beings are equal, and deserving of respect and safety. This is how I was raised and how I am raising my own children. In the long term, and even if it’s very far away, the only real future is that of hope and peace.”
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
The two Opposition spokespeople will have five minutes each. The Minister will have 10 minutes, and there will be a minute or two for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) to wind up.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I also thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for bringing this issue to the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a two-state solution to the conflict in the middle east based on the 1967 borders. In the immediate term, the current ceasefire in Gaza must be maintained, and both sides must advance talks on phase 2. That must include the release of all remaining hostages, including the bodies of hostages killed in Hamas captivity, and it must ensure that aid can flood into Gaza to relieve the suffering of Palestinians after 18 months of devastation.
The UK Government must also urgently engage with the Israeli Government to ensure they reopen aid routes and the supply of electricity, in line with Israel’s obligations under international law. Their decision to blockade and stop electricity entering Gaza is wrong, and it will only exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinians in the strip.
Beyond the immediate maintenance and progression of the ceasefire, a just, long-term peace must include the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has introduced a Bill in each of the last three Sessions calling for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. My noble Friend Baroness Northover has done the same.
We must also work closely with those Israelis and Palestinians who are advocating for a just peace based on a two-state solution, which would bring security and dignity for all. There is no future for peace in the region unless moderate voices can influence and frame discussions on what a peace settlement looks like. That means addressing the sources of resentment and fear for Israelis and Palestinians, weakening Hamas’s influence in Gaza and the west bank, and responding robustly to illegal and often violent Israeli settler encroachments on Palestinian land. This should include the UK Government legislating to cease trade with illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.
We must also work with the international community to identify future democratic leaders of Palestine, with a view to having swift elections in Palestine as soon as possible in the hope of uniting Gaza and the west bank under one democratically elected vote. That will ensure that there is security, safety and a bright future for the Palestinians. We must invest in peace, including via the international fund for middle east peace, encouraging our friends in the Gulf states to contribute. We must use trade as a tool for peace, ensuring that Palestinians and Israelis both benefit, which is something the Liberal Democrats have supported for many years. We were pleased to hear the Prime Minister express his desire to kick-start an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, working alongside the Alliance for Middle East Peace.
Over the past decade, there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In that chasm, civil society organisations have played a vital role in promoting peace, justice and equality. Those organisations are advocates for diplomacy and non-violence within both societies. They educate and mobilise their communities, generate momentum for peace beyond formal political structures, reduce the political risk of new ideas, influence shifting public opinion and contribute directly to political and diplomatic solutions. However, it must be said, the Government’s recent decision to cut the aid budget makes such projects all the more difficult.
The middle east stands at a critical crossroads. Although the fragile ceasefire still holds, destabilising rhetoric and actions threaten efforts towards de-escalation, diplomacy and conflict resolution. No single actor has ever been enough to secure a lasting peace, but the volatile language and policies of the Trump Administration introduce new risks and opportunities for exploitation by extremists.
The UK must work with our allies in Europe, and with regional partners in the middle east, to support the maintenance of the ceasefire, to secure the release of the remaining hostages and to give Gaza the aid its suffering people need. Those are essential preconditions on the path towards a just peace based on a two-state solution along the 1967 borders that ensures security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this debate. I start by acknowledging the incredibly fragile ceasefire, which I think everyone in this House wants to see endure. In aid of that, we need to see the return of each and every hostage taken by Hamas during the barbaric acts of 7 October 2023.
We are all appalled by Hamas’s cynical move to continue holding hostages as human bargaining chips. Those individuals, their families and loved ones have all experienced unimaginable pain over the last 500 days and more. The world has been watching as the hostages released so far have returned to their homes and loved ones. Of course, many have not returned alive. We continue to call on Hamas to immediately release the remaining hostages, who have already suffered so deeply. That is key to a sustainable end to the conflict.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his latest discussions with Israel, the US, the UAE and other regional players to help the parties reach agreement on phase 2 of the ceasefire. I also ask what he is doing to ensure that the UK is a proactive contributor to these discussions and is doing its bit to keep the fragile peace together and to support the deal.
The Prime Minister has pledged his support for establishing an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for the plans to hold an inaugural meeting in London. We all aspire to peace in the region, and the fund was first endorsed by the Conservative Government in 2018. When will the inaugural meeting take place, and who will be a party to those discussions?
On peace more broadly, we understand that the Government share our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, but we have had very little detail on how they plan to help achieve a post-Hamas Gaza. Hamas have been shown to have a callous disregard for human life through their appalling actions on 7 October, their persistent use of Palestinians as human shields, and their murder and mistreatment of hostages. Hamas have extensively repressed civil society in Gaza, stamped out political opposition and arbitrarily arrested journalists. What discussions has the Minister had with Israeli and regional partners on the future governance of Gaza?
Wendy Morton
I will make progress because I am very short on time. Promoting peace in the region is an aim that we all aspire to in this House. The Abraham accords signed in 2020 were a welcome step that normalised relations between Israel and the other regional actors. We celebrate the success of the accords and encourage more countries to normalise relations with Israel as a potential route to a broader peace. Building on the accords presents an opportunity for greater shared prosperity, which we want and hope will mean real, tangible benefits for the Palestinian people too.
During our time in government, we took steps to try to preserve stability in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Between 2021 and 2023, the UK’s conflict, stability and security fund helped over 18,000 Palestinians at risk of eviction to protect their property rights. We strengthened economic opportunity by funding key water infrastructure and we launched the UK-Palestinian tech hub. Between 2015 and 2020, UK official development assistance supported 70,000 children to gain a decent education, and it also supported the middle east peace process, a £30 million programme that ran between 2015 and 2019. The UK is a party outside the region, but it is an important player with key historical links that act as a connector. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we continue our role as a trusted partner, supporting normalised relations and a greater peace in the region?
The most pressing task is ensuring that the fragile peace holds, and we must shift our eyes to the reconstruction of Gaza once we meet the subsequent stages of the ceasefire agreement. What role does the Minister envisage the UK playing in the reconstruction of Gaza? How will we work together with regional allies? What is his response to the paper produced by the Cairo summit? We must also understand what the ODA changes mean in practice for programmes in the region. Will the Minister see funding for the OPTs drop following the announcement? For a lasting peace, Palestinians need the same liberties that their neighbours enjoy in Israel. That involves reforming the Palestinian Authority. We want reforms to continue, including on transparency, fighting corruption and improving public sector efficiency, which we supported last year in government.
As I conclude, and I am very conscious of time, it is important to recognise that, if the Palestinian Authority is to have an expanded role, it needs to implement very significant reforms on welfare and education, and it must demonstrate a commitment to democratic processes. We have an incredibly fragile ceasefire agreement that we must all work to protect. The Government must redouble their efforts to preserve the viability of the two-state solution and ensure that the UK plays its part in helping to lift the people’s eyes to a brighter future—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that I want to call the hon. Member for Mansfield at 5.28 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for sharing their valuable and thoughtful perspectives. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has done so much in these very difficult months in which we have both been Ministers. Much of what I will be able to say about what we are doing in the region is a result of her efforts, and I am very glad to share Westminster Hall with her.
Securing peace in the middle east is a priority that I know we share across the House. The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward. As many have said, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans, as well as the release of hostages—38 so far—was vital. The situation is incredibly sensitive at the moment. I will not provide a detailed commentary on the talks that are ongoing today in order to try to transition into phase 2. As we have said repeatedly, and as I said this morning to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we want to see talks move into phase 2, and into phase 3.
The ceasefire has made an enormous difference to the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and we want it to continue. Many Members have spoken about the deficit of trust. We think that a ceasefire going through all three phrases, with all of the difficult politics and all of the difficult compromises that that will require, is a vital part of building trust between the two communities. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear: the decision to block aid going into Gaza is completely wrong. Aid should not be used as a political tool. I made some comments this morning about the restrictions on energy as well.
The topic of this debate is the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are committed to convening the meeting that many have discussed. Given the developments in the region, I am not in a position today to commit to a time or cast list for the meeting. We want to make sure that the meeting will have the desired effect of building trust across the two communities, and we will need to be sensitive to the circumstances in the region when we meet.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his leadership and the work he has done, particularly in keeping us abreast of the ongoing situation. It is right that the UK takes concrete steps to support peace, including through the revitalising of the Abraham accords, which are about normalisation of relations. Does the Minister agree that peacebuilding funds that rebuild Gaza are not just for humanitarian efforts but are a regional step towards the normalisation of peace and an independent Palestinian state free from Hamas? Does he agree that providing infrastructure, homes and hope will sustain peace efforts and normalise the reality of a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend talks about infrastructure, homes and hope, and it is those three elements—in particular hope—that are so missing at the moment. It is important to make a distinction between the vital humanitarian aid into Gaza and efforts to support civil society, which necessarily will be less focused on the immediate humanitarian support required and the reconstruction, which he rightly says will be necessary in Gaza, and more focused on the efforts that many have referred to as bottom-up—trying to ensure that both communities see bridges to each other.
I very much agree that there is a terrible deficit in trust and confidence across the two communities. When we were in opposition, I travelled there shortly after 7 October—two months later—and it was striking for both communities how little they believed in common in that moment. Rebuilding trust will be vital.
Mr Falconer
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions should be brief.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. When it comes to the moneys, there obviously has not been much, and it must be ensured that it goes far and wide. I think the issue has been debated in the past—that money has been diverted by certain terrorist groups. What we need is transparency to ensure that the moneys that are allocated are safely distributed to the right people for the right purposes.
Mr Falconer
I agree with the hon. Member. It is vital that aid goes to the purposes for which it is intended. To be clear, we imagine this international fund being of a much smaller magnitude than the much larger funds that would be required for humanitarian assistance or the reconstruction of Gaza.
I turn to the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—the spokespeople for the two Opposition parties. In relation to what assessment we make of the various proposals, we welcome the Arab plan. We think it has considerable merit and is a good place to start in thinking through the vital questions of reconstruction and the future governance of Gaza.
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we see no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We think that the Cairo summit made important breakthroughs. We will discuss this at the G7 meeting and as Members will be aware it will be discussed over the coming days by negotiators from a range of countries in the region.
The Palestinian Authority are clearly very important in all of this. They are the authoritative voice for the Palestinian people. We are committed to supporting them through their journey of reform, which is vital. We have given £5 million to support their reform initiatives. There is a range of views about the future governance of Gaza and the role that the Palestinian Authority might play, and some of them were discussed at the Cairo summit. We will play our full role, as the Opposition spokesperson and many Members would expect, so that the provisions in place for the future of Gaza can ensure governance and security both for the people of Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the Israelis themselves.
Before I make some general remarks about conflict prevention and civil society, I want to welcome the work of the APPG on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding; I would be very happy to hear more about it. Civil society has a vital role to play. We will support it fully. We recognise the sensitivities on both sides. Several Members made reference to Senator Kerry’s comments that the problem in 2014 was not necessarily a gulf in the positions but a gulf in the trust, and we see that civil society plays an important role in resolving that.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I hear what the Minister has to say about how we can move to a path towards peace. However, does he agree that there must be steps taken to ensure that Israel is held accountable for its violations of international law? In doing so, will he commit to taking steps to begin ending the UK’s military support to Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have commented on the question of international law, and indeed on arms suspension, both in the main Chamber and this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee. With just one minute left, I will say that I stand by those remarks.
I want to say a bit about some of the lifesaving assistance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East was responsible for when she was the Minister for Development. The assistance, which continues, included an announcement at the end of January for a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, it is absolutely right that we think about the route out of this conflict, but we will not forget those in desperate need at this moment, and our support will continue. I was asked by colleagues about the possible impact of the reduction in ODA. I reiterate what the Prime Minister has already said: we are focused on the needs in Gaza and we will seek to preserve our efforts through any changes.
UK support has meant that over half a million people have received essential healthcare. Some 647,000 people have received food, and 284,000 have had improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. Humanitarian needs, however, cannot be solved by short-term solutions. I will conclude by saying that we reaffirm our support for a credible pathway towards peace, leading to a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace, dignity and security, and we agree on the merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Steve Yemm
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed meaningfully in the spirit of today’s discussion, with a genuine commitment to peace at heart. Very few conflicts inspire stronger opinions and more polarised views than the ones we have discussed today, and I am pleased that so many Members have moved beyond talking points and shared their sincere views on how an international fund could improve the lives of everyone in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I hope that the Minister will meet again with MPs to discuss our future commitment to the fund. I hope that he will encourage the Foreign Secretary to raise the matter at the G7, building on the commitment made last year, with the aim of co-ordinating and institutionalising the UK Government’s support for this work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Written Correction
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leader of the House
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris
The recent news of the loss of three bank branches in my constituency further illustrates the crisis facing communities, including in the Tyne valley, of growing banking deserts. May we have a debate in Government time about the need for access to cash, not only for older people but for those starting businesses, those purchasing houses and those who need to access face-to-face banking services, to promote growth in rural areas?
Lucy Powell
Protecting vital banking services is important for local communities like my hon. Friend’s. We are accelerating the roll-out of at least 350 banking hubs, more than 100 of which are already open, and plans were announced at the end of last year to open a banking hub in his constituency.
[Official Report, 13 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 427.]
Written correction submitted by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell):
Lucy Powell
Protecting vital banking services is important for local communities like my hon. Friend’s. We are accelerating the roll-out of at least 350 banking hubs, more than 100 of which are already open, and plans were announced at the end of last year to open a banking hub in the county of Northumberland.
Written Statements
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dental Patient Charges Uplift
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The Government ambition is to make sure that everyone who needs a dentist can get one. On Friday 21 February 2025, we launched the roll-out of the extra 700,000 urgent dental appointments promised by the Government in their election manifesto. Integrated care boards have been asked to start making these extra appointments available from April 2025, and they will be available to NHS patients experiencing painful oral health issues, such as infections, abscesses, or cracked or broken teeth. Appointments will be available across the country, with specific targets for each region. These targets are more heavily weighted towards those areas where extra appointments are needed the most. Band Description From April 2025 (Proposed) 1: This band includes examination, diagnosis (including radiographs), advice on how to prevent future problems, scale and polish if clinically needed, and £27.40 preventative care (eg applications of fluoride varnish or fissure sealant) £27.40 2: This band covers everything listed in band 1, plus any further treatment such as £75 fillings, root canal work or extractions £75.40 3: This band covers everything in bands 1 and 2, plus course of treatment including crowns, dentures, bridges and other laboratory work £326.70 Urgent: This band covers urgent assessment and specified urgent treatments such as pain relief or a temporary filling or dental appliance repair £27.40
Through the golden hello scheme, integrated care boards are supporting practices across England in recruiting NHS dentists to posts that they have previously struggled to fill. This recruitment incentive will see up to 240 dentists receiving payments of £20,000 to work in those areas that need them most for three years. As of 10 February 2025, in England, 35 dentists have commenced in post and a further 33 dentists have been recruited but are yet to start in post. A further 249 posts are currently advertised.
To rebuild dentistry in the long term, we will reform the dental contract with the sector, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. On 7 March 2025, we announced investment of £11.4 million to implement the manifesto commitment of a national, targeted supervised toothbrushing scheme for 3 to 5-year-olds. The investment will be focused on around 505,000 children living in the 20% most deprived communities across England. Following public consultation, we also announced the expansion of community water fluoridation across the north-east of England, reaching an additional 1.6 million people. At the same time, we will not wait to make improvements to the current system where these can increase access and incentivise the workforce to deliver more NHS care. We are continuing to meet the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental sector to discuss how we can best deliver our shared ambition to improve access for NHS dental patients.
We have launched a 10-year health plan to reform the NHS. A central and core part of the 10-year health plan will be our workforce and how we ensure we train and provide the staff the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities. We have taken necessary decisions to fix the foundations of the public finances at autumn budget. This enabled the spending review settlement of £22.6 billion extra investment in resource spending for the Department of Health and Social Care from 2023-24 out-turn to 2025-26.
On 10 March 2025, the National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 were laid before Parliament to increase national health service dental patient charges in England in line with inflation from 1 April 2025.
NHS dental patient charges provide an important revenue source for NHS dentistry and are typically uplifted on 1 April each financial year. The charges will be uplifted by 2.39% in 2025-26, aligning with the forecast GDP deflator value. Dental patients will benefit from the continued provision that this important revenue supports.
From 1 April 2025, the dental charge payable for a band 1 course of treatment will rise by £0.60, from £26.80 to £27.40. For a band 2 course of treatment, there will be an increase of £1.80 from £73.50 to £75.30. A band 3 course of treatment will increase by £7.60 from £319.10 to £326.70.
Details of the revised charges for 2025-26 can be found in the table below:
We will continue to provide financial support to those who need it most by offering exemptions to the dental patient charges in a range of circumstances. Patients will continue to be entitled to free NHS dental care if they are under 18, or under 19 and in full-time education; pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months; or are being treated in an NHS hospital and have their treatment carried out by the hospital dentist (patients may have to pay for dentures or bridges). Patients will continue to qualify for help with health costs if, on the date they claim, they either:
receive universal credit and either had no earnings or had take-home pay of £435 or less in their last universal credit assessment period;
receive universal credit, which includes an element for a child, or they or their partner had limited capability for work or limited capability for work and work-related activity, and either had no earnings or take-home pay of £935 or less in their last universal credit assessment period;
If the patient is part of a couple, the take-home pay threshold applies to their combined take-home pay.
Support is also available through the NHS low income scheme for those patients who are not eligible for exemption or full remission.
[HCWS512]
NHS Screening and GP Registrations
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to inform the House that yesterday, 10 March 2025, the NHS wrote to around 5,261 people who have not been invited for routine screening. This is because their general practice registration process was not completed correctly, meaning that their details were not passed to NHS screening systems. Those affected have now been added into relevant screening programmes and work is ongoing to ensure that this does not occur in the future.
The letters were posted to affected patients who are still eligible for a screening programme, or who were previously eligible for a screening programme but now exceed the programme’s upper age limit. The letter will explain what has happened and next steps, including details of the helpline that has been set up by NHS England.
Records indicate that up to 10 patients have been diagnosed with a relevant cancer and were not invited for certain screening. NHS England is writing to these patients this week. The impact on these patients is not yet known and a clinical harm assessment process will be undertaken, based on expert clinical advice. It is with deep sadness that I must report that records also indicate that around 10 people who were not invited for screening may have died from a relevant cancer. NHS England will take appropriate action in these circumstances, based on expert clinical advice.
In the summer of 2024, a small number of people contacted NHS England to say they had not been invited for screening. NHS England commissioned further investigation, which led to an issue within GP registration being identified in late December. This issue, which has continued since 2008, affected the bowel, breast and cervical cancer screening programmes, as well as abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. It did not affect the diabetic eye screening programme, or any of the antenatal or newborn screening programmes. Since then, work has been undertaken to identify the individuals affected. Where relevant, work is ongoing to assess any clinical implications of their delayed screening.
The specific problem relates to when a patient registers at a new GP practice. GP registrations returned to some GP practices by Primary Care Support England for further information or review had not been completed, or the GP practice had not sent a message to complete the patient’s registration. Incomplete registrations were not passed to the NHS screening programme IT systems and, therefore, some people had not been invited to their routine screening. Processes have been put in place to make sure that new GP registrations will be closely monitored and updated on systems as necessary.
I would like to assure the House that we will provide regular updates as we offer support to affected patients, and I would like to thank NHS staff who have worked to understand and deal with this issue.
[HCWS513]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, you know the drill. If there is a vote in the Chamber, we shall adjourn the Committee to allow you to take part.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 View all Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (7 Mar 2025)
Viscount Eccles
“(1A) The management responsibilities in subsection (1)(a) to (c) must be discharged by a Non-Departmental Public Body.”
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, when I put down this amendment it seemed to me that we had arrived at a time when we needed clarification about who was going to manage this project. It is approaching construction and has been under consideration for a long time. We have known that there was going to be a Parliament-approved executive management, but we have not got one yet, and so that was my purpose.
If I may go back briefly into the history, the chair of the commission, Mr Davis, said this on pages 6 and 7 of the foreword to Britain’s Promise to Remember:
“To take these recommendations forward the Commission proposes the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This body will implement the recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”.
I emphasise the phrase, “world-leading educational initiative”.
It is true to say that, if you read Britain’s Promise to Remember, you find that the main emphasis is on education. That was confirmed on page 16, which said:
“The Commission’s final recommendation is the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This organisation would oversee the establishment of the new National Memorial and Learning Centre, run that Centre and administer the endowment fund”.
The point I would like to emphasise is that it says both times, “independent body”. I take that to mean that, when the public body is formed, the people who comprise it would be entitled to make up their own minds, and, at least, to make their own presentation.
In January 2015, this was confirmed in the House of Commons by David Cameron, now my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when he said:
“The Commission proposes a new independent body to deliver all these recommendations and wants to see … the creation of the National Memorial in 2016-17, and the Learning Centre within the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/15; col. 20WS.]
The thing I want to emphasise there is that, right from the start, there was an acceptance that the memorial was one thing and the world-class education initiative was another, and that it would take a very considerable time to achieve. There was no intention that they should be contemporaneous. They would be going along at the same time, but at a very different speed.
Subsequent to that, there was an appointment made by the Prime Minister, again in January, when David Cameron announced that Sir Peter Bazalgette would serve as the chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, with, it goes on—although this is not a quote—the expectation that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation would be executive. I do not want to get into an argument about “advisory” versus “executive”. I simply say that what happened while Sir Peter was the chairman included what I would regard as some executive actions: he set out to the 50 different sites to see whether he could find the best one; he was there when the Victoria Tower Gardens were agreed on; and he mounted the competition for the most suitable building.
In April 2018, as we know, Sir Peter resigned and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation became, as I would say, advisory. I just add that I do not think that you would name a body in the way in which that body was named if you intended it to be advisory—it does not sound right to me.
The matter of how this institution was to be managed went on for a long time, with discussions and thoughts, but it rose to the surface again only when the National Audit Office did its investigation in 2022. That report says in terms that the department had studied what sort of a permanent, independent body there should be and had come to the conclusion that its recommendation was that it should be a new non-departmental public body. That recommendation stands, and no doubt we shall be told during these proceedings what has happened to it subsequently, but it seems to me to be high time that some action is taken. After all, Parliament must come into the process, and that always takes time. We are only about a year away from lots of action on the ground. Surely if a chair and a chief executive were to be appointed following the creation of an NDPB, there would be plenty for them to do. They are not going to be bad value for money. When construction starts, there will be many things to do: they will have to study the building and see what they think about how they will run it and how it will deliver the best value for money.
On the subject of the building, I want to make one point. People may ask the question that I would ask, because in my amendment I am talking about the management under Clause 1(1)(a) to (c). Clause 1(1)(a) refers to “a centre for learning”. In the headline, of course, it is called a learning centre. If I understand it correctly, I do not think that what is proposed to go into the building at present can possibly be described as a learning centre.
Learning centres came from America. They are institutions that are normally attached to other institutions, in particular to schools and universities, and—this is a definition—they provide
“a dedicated facility where people can come to learn at a time that suits them in a comfortable and supportive environment”.
If noble Lords want an example, the British Library—the ex-chair of which, the noble Baroness, is not here —does entirely what that definition says. It seems to me that the parliamentary draftsmen must have had some reason for putting “Learning Centre” in the heading but “a centre for learning” in the text. I will be very interested to know why that difference is there, as will, I guess, anybody appointed to manage the institution.
There are many other things. The Treasury will, I think, be quite difficult on occasions during the progress of this project. It will be influenced by how much money is coming from private sources, in particular the charitable trust. The relationship between the chair and chief executive of the new institution and the charitable trust will be of great importance, as will the relationship with the management of the gardens and the Royal Parks. Of course, we have a different ministry above the Royal Parks: DCMS. Anyone who has experience of public bodies—I have been chief executive of one, CDC, and chairman of another, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—knows that all these things take a lot of time and careful negotiation, so there is plenty of work to do. If there was a worry about the cost of having them on the books, the ministry would probably be ready to disband part of its special team that it has put together so far. It is urgent that we move to form this management. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for opening this group. I will speak to my Amendment 22, which seeks to limit the amount of time that Victoria Tower Gardens can be closed to the public as a result of events linked to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre to three days a year.
The protection conferred on Victoria Tower Gardens by the original Act of 1900 was put in place to ensure access to the park as a park in perpetuity. This is particularly important to residents in the locality, many of whom live in flats and would not otherwise have access to green spaces. We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to them and what protections will be in place for them. I note that, in responding to these concerns, the Select Committee report states that limiting the closure dates of Victoria Tower Gardens is a “reasonable request”, as it particularly affects residents who use it on a weekly basis.
There are a number of reasons why the Select Committee’s recommendation 2 and the promotor’s assurance 10 are inadequate to address this and why I suggest that protections need to be enshrined in the Bill, which is what my amendment is designed to do. First, the recommendation by the Select Committee is that this be taken forward in by-laws by the Royal Parks, as the body responsible for maintaining the parts of Victoria Tower Gardens that fall outside the perimeter of the proposed memorial and learning centre.
Parks owned by local authorities usually rely on by-laws. However, for the Royal Parks there is a succession of Acts of Parliament substituting for these by-laws. Usually, decisions on how to apply these regulations are delegated by the Secretary of State for DCMS to TRP management. However, the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the Royal Parks, as happened in May 2024 when the gardens were closed for three days to the public over a bank holiday weekend for an event. It is worth noting, too, that the Royal Parks remain reliant for 60% of their annual income on DCMS. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the promoter or the authority subsequently created to run the HMLC would be refused permission to close the parks by DCMS or the Royal Parks if it requested it. That is why there must be protections in the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Eccles in his Amendment 5 and will speak to my Amendment 33. When I first saw the department’s plan to manage this, I was tempted to ask the Minister facetiously whether he would put the experts of HS2 in charge of the project since they seemed to have all the matching qualities outlined in the devastating “red for danger” Infrastructure and Projects Authority report. But then I had a panic—perhaps they might not realise that I was being facetious and actually put HS2 in charge.
The National Audit Office said in a devasting report of 2022 that the department had informed it that it hoped to get an NDPB up and running about a year before the centre opened. It would be in charge of running it but have no role in managing its construction. The key findings of that NAO report were that:
“The Department does not have a track record of managing programmes of this nature … The Department has recruited specialists from across the civil service and externally, but the team does not have staff with programme management expertise in senior positions”.
However, the devasting criticism of the project is not a comment by the NAO but is printed on page 11 of the report as an organisation chart showing the nine bodies under the Secretary of State that will have input into its management. The department calls this “the governance structure”. I have given a copy of this to the Minister, to Hansard and to the clerks. Of course, we cannot enter it into Hansard, so I will read out what it says.
At the bottom of the chart are three organisations credited with giving independent assurance. One is the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has already condemned the management of the project. Another is the Cabinet Office, which must give approval on business cases and procurement. Then there is the Treasury. The NAO report says that the Treasury’s role is to be:
“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.
We all know what the Treasury is like: no one will be able to buy a nail to build this place without months and months of Treasury approval. That is another government department with management rights over this project.
Then there are three advisory boards: the foundation advisory board, the academic advisory board and the construction advisory board. The members of the foundation advisory board are extremely distinguished and will all have firm views on fulfilling their role of defining the overall vision for the programme, including content of the learning centre. But the academic advisory board,
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”.
So now we have two expert bodies advising on content and a paralysed programme board terrified to decide between them or reject their advice. This is a recipe for delay and completely contradictory decisions as the programme board attempts to please everyone.
Above those advisory bodies, we have the programme board itself. I hope that noble Lords are listening carefully, because this is what it will do:
“Meets monthly and is chaired by the senior responsible owner. It is the decision-making authority for the programme and collectively owns the programme’s objectives. It monitors the performance of individual projects and work packages, as well as the risks and issues affecting delivery and the mitigations in place to address them. Members include the programme director, programme manager and project leads. Representatives from other parts of the Department, such as Procurement, and external stakeholders, including specialist contractors, are also invited to meetings”.
What an extraordinarily huge bunch of people with no power except to monitor performance, assess risks and pass things on to the oversight board.
The oversight board is one level higher up. It will meet
“2-3 times a year with representatives from the Foundation Advisory Board and senior government. Sets the strategic direction of the programme and is the escalation point for the Programme Board; any changes to the strategic direction need Oversight Board approval”.
Next, we have the investment sub-committee, whose remit is:
“The ISC must approve new project or programme business cases. The programme must seek further ISC approval if it is forecast to use more than half of the approved cost contingency.”
Finally, at the top of this indecision tree is the Secretary of State as
“the ultimate escalation point and sits on the Oversight Board”.
In summary, we have three advisory committees, one organisation with responsibility for finance, two powerful government departments with the final say on finance and two other boards that monitor things and talk about them. There is one thing missing—a straightforward delivery board whose mission given to it by the Secretary of State should be simply this: “You will deliver this project X at a cost Y by day Z and you will suffer penalty P if you fail to deliver and you are a day late.” Get rid of all the other talking shops except the foundation advisory board, which can advise on content but with no say on design or construction. Once new plans are approved in detail, no changes should be made at all. We have all seen in the buildings around Parliament—from Portcullis House onwards—how architects and designers loved to have a committee of politicians in charge, who changed the design regularly, costing an absolute fortune.
This Heath Robinson so-called management structure devised by the department is a recipe for argument, delay and cost overruns. However, it has one magnificent feature cleverly built in by civil servants: with this structure, not a single person can be held accountable for failure. If the cost goes from £138 million to £200 million, which of these bodies gets the blame, or if it is three years late, or if the Jewish community condemns it at the end as not being appropriate? That is why we need a new non-departmental public body set up now and given a simple set of objectives to deliver a set project at a set date at a set cost. That is the only way this can ever work.
I turn now to my Amendment 33 and the future management of Victoria Tower Gardens. In April 1946, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told Conservative MPs in a Commons debate:
“We are the masters at the moment, and … for a very long time to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/1946; col. 1213.]
I now hear Cabinet Ministers saying that the new Attorney-General is telling them, “I am the master now”. Be that as it may, the relevance of this comment is that I fear that any new NDPB set up to run the completed project will feel that it is the all-powerful master of Victoria Tower Gardens, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out.
The NDPB will be under the overall control of a Secretary of State, partly funded by the Government, and possibly eventually fully funded if the costs grow out of control. It will have, no doubt, a senior civil servant or two from the department, and some others of the great and the good. With the clout it will have from government, it will feel that it can dictate all aspects of the governance of the gardens.
We can guess what will happen: if it finds long queues, it will create roped-off chicanes, like those zigzag lines you get in airports, and do so with no consultation with the garden authorities. What will it do to stop visitors spreading out over the rest of the garden to have picnics, as in Berlin, and taking up the space of other garden users?
We simply have no idea what pressures may arise to infringe on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, as Amendment 33 makes clear, the NDPB must not have any authority over any other parts of the garden and must consult local residents in advance through the relevant local amenity societies with regard to any matters which may affect the free use of Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the rest of the public. Anything else would be inappropriate.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Eccles and his amendment and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Much of what I was going to say has been well forked over already, but I think it underlines the importance of moving towards a clear structure and organisation as quickly as possible.
The spider’s web of committees and advisory boards referred to by my noble friend on page 11 of the National Audit Office’s report must be a recipe for disaster. As he pointed out very forcefully, it is a way to ensure that nobody will ever be blamed for anything. It does not matter whether it is too much money, design faults, cost overruns, failure to meet timescales or failure to meet commitments, as page 13 of the National Audit Office’s report puts it—they can only have been designed and drafted by Sir Humphrey—it is, in effect, an organisational blank cheque. We need to make sure that it is very much better controlled, in the interests of performance delivery, the taxpayer and Parliament as a scrutinising body.
I hope that the Minister, who has so far put his foot to the metal, will take some time to think about these organisational problems, which are very real and have been brought forward by the National Audit Office on other pages of its report. If we do not do that, we are setting ourselves up for a very unhappy period during which this project gets going.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I seconded the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and I agree with it. It is important also to look at the report from the excellent Select Committee that dealt with it. It says:
“The limitation of closure dates seems to us to be a reasonable request”.
That is what the right reverend Prelate said. It went on to say:
“It is not appropriate for an amendment to the Bill … but is probably best addressed in byelaws applicable to VTG”.
My experience of government is that, very often, by-laws get ignored to a certain extent, so we want to be clear where the limitations are. That is why I support the amendment.
I want to go on about closure dates, not least after my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson have raised the issue. The issue is around who is going to run this. In paragraph 104, the Select Committee assumed that:
“The Royal Parks … will be the body responsible for maintenance of those parts of VTG outside the perimeter of the proposed HMLC”.
I think we need to get this absolutely clear. The Royal Parks, as I recall—and somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed the whole idea because it thought it was an inappropriate place to put a memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear who is responsible for what.
Those of us who have worked in government, as many in this Room have, and many of them for longer than me, know that if there is no clear line of responsibility then nobody is responsible for anything. We need to have a clear line of responsibility in this, and that is why I support these amendments.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of all the amendments in this group, which are about closure and governance. Perhaps I will wrap up closure first, because it is a discrete issue.
There has been a tendency, since it was first chosen, for the promoters to treat Victoria Tower Gardens as a private park of their own. It was closed for a day in May 2024 for a Holocaust commemoration event in which the main message was that people had better get used to it. The Royal Parks, which manages the gardens, said that its initial decision to refuse permission for the commemoration event to take place there was based on its “longstanding policy” of not allowing “religious activity” in its parks, apart from annual acts of remembrance where memorials already exist”. But, lo and behold, the gardens have been closed again this year for the same purpose.
Issues of transparency are being played out now in real time. The park was closed last year on a May bank holiday weekend. We were told that that would be a one-off, but we now discover that it is planned again for April this year, without any consultation or forewarning. This is creating a precedent in breach of existing Royal Parks policies.
One can see what will happen: because the learning centre will be so small, every time there is a need for a meeting, the whole of the park will be closed off. Little gilt chairs and a tent will be put in, and the park will be taken over. That is why it is extremely necessary to have something in the Bill to prevent this total takeover.
This brings me to governance. In a nutshell, those of us who are concerned about governance—Peers sitting in this Room today—have written to the National Audit Office reminding it that, on 5 July 2022, it put out a report that was critical of the management of the project and called for reforms. We do not know whether those reforms have been carried out. The ministry says that it has done so, but many Peers do not think that any of those reforms have been carried out. There is no evidence that the department has addressed the National Audit Office’s concerns about the lack of management and project management, or the number of bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to. There does not seem to be one body that is in charge of delivery. When questioned last time about who is responsible, the Minister said simply, “The Government”. Again, we await a response from the National Audit Office, and hope that it will re-open its report.
The governance of this project has always been a mystery. The original foundation was composed of more donors to the Tory party than scholars, and no executives. Can the Minister tell us, in straightforward language, who is in charge of executing this project and its future governance? A new NDPB will have to be created to manage it, its relationship with the park managers has yet to be defined, and there is no information about how it will deal with local residents. It will have to be limited in its power. We need enlightenment on how it will work—including the clash with the various bodies running the gardens—and how it will relate to the bodies responsible for the restoration and renewal of this Palace, with all the building equipment that will be required. How will these things all work together?
We were told at the outset of this project that the Government would kick-start a society-wide fundraising effort to deliver the project and an endowment fund. There has been no sign of that. Incidentally, some Holocaust survivors live very modestly; they are all elderly, and they need the extra comforts demanded by age and their past suffering. Perhaps that would be a better way to direct fundraising, if there is any.
The insubstantial nature of management may explain why countless attempts by me to get any information about the project from the department, by way of freedom of information requests, have been fiercely resisted. It is almost as if the department is ashamed of what might be revealed. We hope that, today, the Minister will tell us what plans there are for management.
The problems revealed by the National Audit Office report were that the department was an unsuitable sponsor, was not perceived as independent and has never sponsored a comparable institution or any major cultural sector initiative. Its near-exclusive focus on the search for a site has not turned out well, as we know, and there has been a failure so far to create an independent body. There has been no transparency around site selection or finance, and value for money has never been mentioned or addressed.
There has also been no parliamentary scrutiny of the project until now. There has been a lack of qualified external appraisal of the project brief, the design and the environmental effects of the proposals. There has been a lack of sufficient consultation with the public on the site; such consultation as there was was very much rigged and curtailed. There has been a lack of attention to public feedback on the design. There has been a lack of consultation with the academic community; there is a British association of Holocaust scholars, who feel that they have not been involved.
There is no business plan in evidence, let alone consulted on, or management clarity. Even operational management is unclear. The management of the project has been invisible, shifting and problematic throughout; for example, there have been issues with the Royal Parks throughout the process, that organisation having been in opposition. No charitable foundation of substance has been created. We believe that there is a small one, organised by Sir Gerald Ronson, but where is the major endowment fund that is required? That is the subject of another amendment.
Of course, the department is conflicted in every way. It has made no effort to carry out an independent planning process but has made itself the planning applicant—and, at the last minute, it has had to delegate the calling in and determination of the application to a junior Minister; this was 12 months after the application was submitted. Now, we call on the Minister to be clear about the management. This project has been known about for nine years. I cannot imagine any other project that has been left to drift in the way this one has; I therefore support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to a document, a copy of which I have in my hand: Programme Governance for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, issued by DLUHC. It refers to 10 different entities, which have together produced, on the academic content of the learning centre, a box containing 13 words:
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”—
whatever that amounts to. If there had been one NDPB in existence, it would have been put to shame in both Houses of this Parliament for producing such an empty vessel as is contained in those 13 words. It contains no reference to the content or structure of the learning centre; to the opportunities that would arise from the learning centre; to the academic components of the centre; or to the staffing of the centre.
I invite the Minister to look at those words as an example of how this multiplicity of components has, in effect, led to no programming whatever of this learning centre. At the moment, all it is—despite those 10 entities—is four small rooms in which there will be computerised images that someone will choose. Are we to take it that the whole purpose of the academic advisory board is to do a show of computerised images and select the ones that will be shown for the time being? That does not sound like any learning centre I have ever seen, and does not accord to the definition that we heard reference to earlier.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on closure dates. I was a member of the Select Committee, which, as he told us, took the view that it should not table an amendment to the Bill. Select Committees are very reluctant to amend a Bill; if we did so, we would have the Bill amended before it reached discussion in this House. The place for consideration of amendments is in Committee or on Report. Whatever you see in paragraph 104 should not inhibit in any way the freedom of this Committee or the House to discuss whether an amendment is appropriate. We set out in appendix 7 to our report the various inhibitions and restrictions on a Select Committee in making amendments. It is well to bear in mind that, while we said that there should be no amendment, that in no way need operate against the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I think there is general agreement that there should be an independent, stand-alone body. I have no doubt that, once this Bill becomes an Act, that is one of the first things the Government will do. I say this very gently and with no criticism intended, because part of the process of planning is that you can object to things and use all force and every possibility to slow things down. However, one reason it has cost so much is the delays, which are caused by people exercising their democratic rights. I do not complain about that whatever.
However, the question is whether these things should be in the Bill. Frankly, I doubt that they should. With due respect to the right reverend Prelate, I am a little queasy about limiting in the Holocaust Bill the number of days in which we commemorate 6 million dead. Why are we not limiting the number of dog shows, open-air cinemas and organised picnics and exercise in the parks? It looks peculiar that we should pick on the Holocaust and Jews in this Bill. I urge the right reverend Prelate to think again about this and whether we can use common sense to find ways to ensure that people can enjoy the park. It looks appallingly bad for the Holocaust to be picked out.
I say in the gentlest way that I do not recognise any of noble Lords’ descriptions of the academic board. It is only right that we ensure that this is a balanced memorial and learning centre, which does not glorify the British Empire but shows what happened during the Holocaust and our reaction to it, warts and all. That seems a reasonable thing. Frankly, all the various plugs have to be pulled, because we cannot spend public money on what goes inside and start to employ a major director until we have authority to build this. That is not just subject to this Bill; it will also be subject to a further planning consideration. We are some way from being able to appoint people to commit public expenditure to do that, so I am very dubious that any of this should be in the Bill. The Government have made a number of commitments on all three of these things, and they should be made to deliver on them.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on the first day in Committee to make clear my support for the memorial but my great concern about the learning centre. It seems increasingly clear that there is an extraordinary vagueness about what it will be made of, how it will be run and how long it will take to produce. I pressed the Minister for an indication of any quotations we might have, any companies that might be willing to build it and any idea of what their costs might be. He very kindly replied to say,
“the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 68.]
That means that the Government have no idea, either, what this might actually cost.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to endorse, in general terms, what has been said already, but I invite your Lordships to look at this slightly differently: from the perspective of land use, in which I have had a considerable amount of experience, in various ways, during my career. The point was well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who said that the learning centre will become the focus of Victoria Tower Gardens. When that happens, de facto, if not de jure, Victoria Tower Gardens will become the curtilage of the learning centre and will not be a distinct and important entity.
We have heard about the proposals for the management of the various elements coming to the Victoria Tower Gardens, and some of them seem to be prolix, too complicated, muddled and so on. I do not wish to go down that road. The fundamental point is that, if and when this occurs and is a great success, people will no doubt ask, “Where is the Holocaust memorial learning centre?” and the answer will be, “It is in Victoria Tower Gardens”. When land use changes, the whole character of an area changes. Perhaps the most obvious current example in London is the redevelopment, over the last decade or so, around King’s Cross. It was, frankly, a squalid, low area, but is now up and coming, and entirely different. That has happened organically. These changes happen once something gets under way in an organic way over which Governments have remarkably little control.
If what is being proposed is the great success that its advocates claim it will be, it will fundamentally change the character of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area immediately surrounding it, and there will be nothing Governments can do, through governance mechanisms, to deal with it. It is important that we appreciate that possibility in our discussions about these matters.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I just elucidate a couple of points that have arisen? First, the delay in this project, which is undoubted, arises solely from the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen in defiance and ignorance of the 1900 statute that forbade building there. That is the reason for the delay and the litigation.
Secondly, Crufts is a bad analogy for closing the park. The learning centre may well be open 365 days a year, day and night, for all we know. However, we are talking about protecting the rest of the park, over which the prohibition in the 1900 statute will remain. It would be in defiance of that statute if the park were to be closed every now and then, quite frequently, for a meeting.
Finally, it has frequently been said in these debates that this and that issue will be sorted out in the planning application. However, we then hear that we do not know whether there will be a full planning application or whether the Minister will call it in. We need a direct statement from the Minister. Will there be a new, full planning application, starting with Westminster City Council?
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will briefly come in on something my noble friend Lord Pickles said about 6 million Jews. I am sure many people here have been to Yad Vashem, which is one of the most moving places I have been to. I have been there three times, and it is absolutely heartbreaking every time—as any memorial and learning centre to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust of the mid-20th century under the Nazis should be.
However, my noble friend said that for 6 million Jews we should have about three days of closure a year, but this memorial is about the Holocaust, not about the 6 million Jews—as I think it should be. It is about the Holocaust in general. Are we going to have one for the Armenian holocaust, where a huge number of Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks in the 1920s? Are we going to have one for the Rwandan holocaust? I have been to Rwanda and know that it was equally as awful. It was just as much of a holocaust as the Jewish one, with one million out of eight million people in Rwandan murdered. Are we going to have one for Holodomor, which saw the slaughter of Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1930s? All of these are examples of holocausts. That is why we are talking about three days, to stop there being endless holocaust events.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I think I was with my noble friend on his last visit to Yad Vashem. Like him, I have been there many times, and I am always moved by the process. However, we need to make it absolutely clear that there is only one Holocaust. A number of genocides have occurred before and after, but there is only one Holocaust: that was the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend Lord Robathan has made a very good point, and my noble friend Lord Pickles is right that there is only one Holocaust. But the briefing for this centre says that other genocides will also be commemorated there. So there will be things about Holodomor, and possibly Rwanda, and Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or whoever they may be. Though there is only one really evil Holocaust, the Shoah, other genocides will also be commemorated. In my opinion, that dilutes the purpose of a Holocaust memorial.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was one of the few Members of either House—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who will confirm what I am saying—who attended a meeting organised to discuss the contents of the learning centre. The meeting was addressed by a historian who made it absolutely clear that this is not a learning centre about genocides; it is a learning centre specifically about the Holocaust, and it will not relativise the Holocaust and it will not compare the Holocaust to other genocides. The only extent to which other genocides may be mentioned is on the way out, where it might say something along the lines of, “Since then, there have been other genocides, showing we have not yet learned lessons”. The learning centre will be devoted specifically and solely to the Holocaust. That is what it is.
I was not going to take part in this debate but while I am on my feet, I have some questions for the right reverend Prelate. Why did he fix on three days? What was the basis for it and who did he consult? Is it based on the number of Holocaust commemorations? Did he speak to Holocaust survivors? Why did he decide that just three days in the entire year might be appropriate to remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis?
I point out gently to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not see what would be objectionable about people visiting the Holocaust memorial and sitting on the grass to eat their sandwiches afterwards. Why should they not have a picnic in the park if they choose to do so? It is what many other visitors to the park do. How would he distinguish between people visiting the memorial and having their lunch and people visiting the park and having their lunch? Many of the people visiting the memorial will be people who would visit the park anyway. Lots of people who visit the memorial will be people who live within the vicinity of the memorial or work in Westminster, so why would he object? I assume that he would not object to any of those people eating their sandwiches in the park. Why would he object to visitors to the memorial doing so?
My final point is that lots of the contributions to this suggest that the memorial and learning centre are going to take over the whole park. We have just heard a speech about land use as though it is going to transform the nature of the park. I gently point out to everybody in these discussions that the memorial and learning centre will in fact take up just 7.5% of the land in the park. I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he concludes. It is a complete fallacy that it is going to take over the whole park and totally transform this part of Westminster.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he just accept that if 3,000 to 4,000 people come every day—those are the numbers we have been given—that will affect the way the park operates from the point of view of the local residents? I am not saying that it is impossible to do, but will he accept that there is a distinct difference when that volume of people comes to visit the memorial and learning centre? It is bound to make a difference. To suggest that it will make no difference at all and it will be business as usual is naive, if I may make so bold.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
What I will say is that millions of people visit Westminster all year round. Tourists from all over the world come to Westminster and some of those will visit the memorial. I do not think that this will add significantly to the numbers that we already see visiting Westminster.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord referred to me in his remarks and I wish to respond. It is a matter of numbers. I came through the park today, as I do every day, and there were a few people out exercising their little doggies and picking up their mess, and kiddies having little picnics, but if we are going to have these 40 busloads of people eating their sandwiches, the park will be absolutely overwhelmed by excessive numbers and all those other activities will be frozen out, because of the dominance of numbers of those visiting the centre.
If I may say so, the noble Lord was absolutely wrong. I need to open my laptop and find the report. He may have talked to an expert who said that the Holocaust will be the only thing commemorated, but that is not what the official report says. The official report mentions other genocides that will also be commemorated. Of course, it does not refer to them as a Holocaust, because they are not, but it refers to the commemoration of other genocides. That was mentioned in the official Holocaust Commission report and it is referred to in the report published by the department, so it is incorrect to say that the centre will purely be for the Holocaust. I wish it were and I would like to see amendments saying that it should be devoted to the Holocaust only.
The other point about the size is also utterly wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it will be four pokey little rooms underground and 48% of the construction underground will not be available to the public: it is ducts, stairways and non-usable space. So we will have an inadequate learning centre far too small for the purpose but far too large for the park, visited, if the Government are right, by tens of thousands of people who will inevitably, in the nicest possible way, with their picnics and so on, squeeze out the other users of that park whom I see every single day.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, before I support my noble friend Lord Pickles, I should say that I voted for this back in 2013 when I was a Member of Parliament under David Cameron. Since then, every Prime Minister—May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and indeed Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister—supported this. All Prime Ministers will support this application. Why is it that Prime Ministers support it? Because they are global leaders. Go around the globe or around Europe, to Berlin, for example, or to America. The Holocaust memorial in Berlin is its centrepiece; you cannot visit Berlin without seeing the Holocaust memorial.
In my view—I am biased, I admit—London is the greatest global city, so therefore to have this memorial as close to the British Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, is exactly the right place. I say to some noble Lords—many of them are my friends—that this is starting to sound like a local authority council chamber. This is not a local government council chamber. This is the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is the right memorial in the right place in this great city.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord is completely correct to make the point about Berlin, where the memorial and the learning centre are right next door to the parliament building, right at the centre of national life. It is really significant. If you go to Washington, you will see its memorial and museum right at the centre of national life. If you go to Paris, you would barely know that the Holocaust had taken place and, if you go to Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete box tucked away in a square in the middle of nowhere. The point he makes is exactly right. Next to Parliament, showing what happens when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism—that is why it should be built in Westminster.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lord, it is quite clear from the exchanges that we have had this afternoon that the site of this learning centre is extremely controversial. It seems to me that a memorial to 6 million people is almost sacred. It should not be built in a place that arouses controversy of this sort. It is disrespectful to the dead that it should be a subject of controversy and, because it is a subject of controversy, it should be moved to somewhere else.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to comment yet again, but it seems to me deeply ironic that people who oppose it, and of course the controversy, then complain about the controversy and say it should be built somewhere else. It also seems ironic that people who have, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, campaigned against it and caused the delays now say that the delays are a reason for siting it somewhere else. I do not understand these points.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that interventions should be brief and for points of clarification. Can we now proceed with the debate? Thank you.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
I wonder if I could just make a very small point of clarification. As a personal view, I entirely agree that the memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. What I worry about is the attempt to shoehorn in the learning centre as well. If we were able to have a standalone, well-designed, come-and-see memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it would get my vote immediately, because I also have in mind a world-class educational initiative, and I cannot see that the building proposed, or any of the preparations that have been made, go anywhere near creating a world educational initiative. In the world educational initiative, it is not only the understanding of what happened but what we think about it now and where we are going in these very difficult days where we have similar problems to face.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am worried that Members are getting a little agitated. I do not think that they should be concerned, because there has not been a single Holocaust memorial built anywhere in the world where this kind of controversy did not occur. People, by and large, do not like them. They do not want them, but once they are built, they are very proud of them.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have visited the Berlin memorial more than once. It is widely regarded as inappropriate and ineffective. People picnic on it, they bicycle around it, they dance on top of it. They do not know what it is and, of course, what good has it done in Germany? Where is Germany heading now? Look at the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe. There is no relationship at all between the position of a memorial and the effect that it has.
As for the contents of the learning centre, there will be an amendment later. However, Answers to the many parliamentary Questions I have asked have always said that the memorial will contain references to other genocides. This genocide or that genocide—the Government do not seem to know which ones but have always referred to others. It is only very recently that someone has said, “Oh, but the genocide of the Jews is more important than the others and shouldn’t be compared”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am going to stick to the Bill in front of us, particularly the amendments in this group that relate to the future management of the Victoria Tower Gardens. Many noble Lords use the gardens frequently. I used to do so twice a day. Many use it often—every day. It is an important green space in the heart of our capital city and noble Lords are right to raise questions about the future management of the gardens. I know we will be debating the protections for the existing installations and trees in the next group.
During my time as a Minister in DLUHC, now MHCLG, I worked on the delivery of the Holocaust Memorial. We support the delivery of the memorial as soon as possible. It is almost a national shame that we are 10 years down the road and it is 80 years since the release of many people from those terrible camps. As I said last week, however, it is vital that the memorial is delivered soon, so that some of our survivors can still be with us. I just cannot imagine the opening of this memorial after so long without some survivors still to be there.
I was interested in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Eccles and Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. They raise important questions for the Government about who will manage the learning centre and the memorial. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s reply, as this is an important area where we deserve some clarity from the Government on the future direction of their project. However, my noble friend Lord Pickles is absolutely right. We do not have even planning permission yet, let alone the future management structure of the memorial and learning centre. It will be important for the body responsible for the memorial and learning centre to work with local communities as well. I am sure the Minister is listening to that. As we move forward, the two groups will have to work together regularly on what is happening at the centre and how the park is protected.
I am inclined to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 22 on closures of the gardens. It is important that the gardens are not closed to local people too often. That can be discussed with local people on an ongoing basis. That happens all over this country where parks are sometimes used for community use, whereby the community talks to the people responsible for the park. I am sure it happens with the Royal Parks as well. Many people enjoy Victoria Tower Gardens regularly; we must consider their interests as we work to deliver the memorial.
I see an argument for the gardens being closed to the public on only a small number of days, and Holocaust Memorial Day would be one example. But the underlying theme here is that we must balance the rights of the different groups who use the gardens, and the right reverend Prelate’s amendment may help achieve that balance. However, it is inappropriate for that to be in the Bill. That is not what the Bill is about. As with many of the amendments that we shall debate today, these are planning considerations. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments in this group.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend said that we have not yet had a planning application. Would she care to join the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in pressing the Minister on this yes or no question: will there be a new, fresh planning application? Also, will she press the Minister in demanding a new planning application?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will make that ask of the Minister in our debate on a subsequent group; if he does not answer now, I will repeat it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another passionate debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their Amendments 5, 22 and 23. With this group of amendments, we are in essence considering the future of Victoria Tower Gardens as a place where all members of the public can enjoy free access to a green space in the very heart of Westminster.
From the beginning of the design process, the importance of maintaining access to Victoria Tower Gardens has been a high priority. The design that we are taking forward was selected from a long list of exciting and high-quality proposals partly because it showed a great deal of respect for the gardens, positioning the memorial at the southern end and leaving the great majority of open space to the public; I will not get into the debate on the size of the project because that will be discussed in our debate on the third group. Our proposals also include a high level of investment in the gardens themselves: we will improve the quality of the paths, the planting and the grass lawn; and we will provide new boardwalks, enabling better views of the Thames, with paths and seating made more easily accessible for all.
Amendment 22 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would impose a statutory limit on the number of closures of Victoria Tower Gardens for commemoration events related to the Holocaust. As I have said—I will say it again now—it has always been our intention that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain open to the public, with only a small area taken for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre when it is built. We are well aware of the value placed on the green open space by local residents, nearby office workers and visitors to Parliament, not to mention parliamentarians themselves; that is why the Bill ensures that the requirement to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the public will remain.
Assurances were given to the Lords Select Committee on various points, including commitments relating to the management of Victoria Tower Gardens; these were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. Ministers will continue to be held accountable for those public assurances by Parliament in the normal way.
Closures were discussed in some depth by the Lords Select Committee. The result was that the committee’s special report directed a recommendation to the Royal Parks—which manages the gardens on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—to consider this matter going forward. A number of noble Lords, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the closure of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Yom HaShoah event on Sunday 5 May. This was requested by the then Culture Secretary because the gardens’ location made them more accessible for frail Holocaust survivors than the usual venue in Hyde Park. Contrary to claims by petitioners at the hearing on 20 November, our understanding is that the partial closure was for one day only, with the playground remaining open until midday—not the three days that have been mentioned. No decisions have been taken on future closures of the entirety of Victoria Tower Gardens to facilitate Holocaust-related commemoration events once the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is built.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, why, then, is a commemoration event—I nearly said a closure; it will no doubt involve closure—being advertised right now, for April? People are being invited to buy tickets for it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am not aware of that event, but I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness on this issue. I remind noble Lords that it was because of the frailty of Holocaust survivors that it was deemed appropriate for them to attend here, at Victoria Tower Gardens next to Parliament, rather than Hyde Park.
Given that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is intended to be the national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, it is expected that it will host annual events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day and Yom HaShoah. The Government would expect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre operating body to work closely with the body responsible for the wider arrangements of the Victoria Tower Gardens to agree arrangements for any other proposed or required closures associated with the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked the important question of who will be responsible for the project: who will be charge? It is quite straightforward: it will be the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is clear in Clause 1. One of the big reasons we have put the Holocaust memorial in a Bill is for Clause 1 to give permission for the Secretary of State to spend on the project.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
On that question, given the number of bodies on the sheet of the National Audit Office, will the Minister write to Members of the Committee to say, “These are the people involved in each of those bodies, and this is what they cost”? As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, there is a huge range of people and possibilities for cost. I do not expect the answer now, but it would be helpful for our future deliberations if we knew what the current structure costs and, therefore, the urgency to move to my noble friend’s proposed change.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes an excellent point. In response to his request, I am absolutely happy to provide all the details on the structure and the associated issues that he raised. We will write not just to him but to the wider Committee.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be in charge. Do I take it, therefore, that the delivery body will be the Secretary of State and the department? The Secretary of State will draw up the design for the architects, after the planning permission, and she and her officers will let the contract and put in its terms and conditions, the cost overruns and all that sort of thing, so that by the time the NDPB is set up to run it, the Minister’s department will be managing the delivery of this contract. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The Secretary of State is responsible for the delivery of the project.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I want to move on because there are a lot of points to come on to that I am pretty confident noble Lords will ask about, but I assure them that I will come back to the points raised.
In our response to the Select Committee’s report, we have said that we will seek to work with the Royal Parks in taking forward the recommendation. That said, I believe it would be completely wrong to set a formal limit on Holocaust-related events and not on other types of event. The Bill should not pre-empt the discussions we will have with the Royal Parks at the appropriate time by setting an arbitrary statutory limit on closures. We will work proactively with the Royal Parks to find a suitable solution that properly respects the rights and interests of all parties.
Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to set out the future management responsibilities for different parts of Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, although these matters are important and need careful attention, the Bill is not the place to deal with them and it would be premature to attempt to do so. Decisions on the precise form and function of the operating body for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have yet to be taken. However, I can assure the Committee that we have no plans for the operating body to take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of Victoria Tower Gardens beyond that part of the gardens occupied by the memorial and learning centre. We were pleased to give an assurance to this effect to the Lords Select Committee when it scrutinised the Bill.
Victoria Tower Gardens is Crown land for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. The Royal Parks charity manages the gardens on behalf of DCMS under its overall contract to maintain London’s Royal Parks and other plots of land, including Victoria Tower Gardens, which do not have royal park status. We fully recognise the importance of close co-operation between the body responsible for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the body responsible for managing Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will seek to ensure, through sponsorship and contracting arrangements, that the two bodies co-operate within a framework which enables each to pursue their distinct objectives. I am sure that both bodies will recognise the importance of consulting local residents—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—as well as amenity groups in advance on any changes that will affect their access to the gardens.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord King, about the cost, the figure of £138.8 million was published in 2023 and is based on the advice of professional cost consultants. At no point will we seek tenders for construction until we have planning consent.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the infrastructure authority did not say that the only reason this project is undeliverable is that we did not have a Bill. It listed a whole host of reasons why it was undeliverable: no plan, no proper costing and no one really in charge. I do not want to go on at length about it, but I can certainly look out the exact quote for the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, finally, I turn to Amendment 5 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be managed by a non-departmental public body. The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report included a specific recommendation for the
“creation of a permanent independent body”
with responsibility for implementing the commission’s
“recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”
in the long term.
The noble Viscount talked about the learning centre. We envisage an ambitious programme of educational activities. Some will be delivered on site and many will be delivered by working in partnership with other organisations, such as the Holocaust Educational Trust. The commission’s vision, which the Government accepted, was that such a body would guide, sponsor and facilitate ongoing commemoration and educational initiatives to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust and its lessons remain vibrant and current for all future generations.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body ultimately accountable to Parliament. The cost of running the memorial and learning centre will be met through a mixture of fundraising and grant funding, as with many other government-sponsored organisations.
As no decisions have yet been taken by the Government on the right model for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it would not be right to tie our hands by including a statutory requirement that it be a non-departmental public body. Indeed, it would be premature to do so, given that we do not yet have planning permission for the centre to be built.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked about future planning permission. It is for the designated Planning Minister to decide what he will do and what approach to take to planning.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, raised numerous examples of the creation of Holocaust memorials and museums across the world. I want to talk about the one in the United States, which I visited in 2018. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. It was announced by the Administration of President Carter and opened by President Clinton. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including on the grounds that it would lead to anti-Semitism because Jews would be seen as having privileged status, that injustices in American history were more deserving of memorials, that it would be used to whitewash America’s responses to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate its responses, or that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.
All these reasons for opposition were given; another was that it was the right idea but in the wrong place. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993.
I understand that there is opposition and that there has been delay, but time is of the essence. I want to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We want to ensure that Holocaust survivors are, we hope, present and alive to witness this being built and completed. I hope my explanations will enable noble Lords to understand why I am unable to accept their amendments. I request that the noble Viscount withdraws his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
May I just make sure that the record reflects accurately what the Infrastructure and Projects Authority actually said? On 16 January this year, it said:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.
Never once did it mention that it was undeliverable because we had not got a Bill yet and I would like the record to reflect that accurately. I am afraid that the Minister may have been fed a line.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Before we round up the debate, these generic arguments are not relevant to the Bill. Let me remind the Committee, in the kindest way, that the Bill has two main functions. One is in Clause 1, which allows the Secretary of State to spend on the project; the other is in Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 London Act for the project to be built. I appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections but we are speaking to amendments here. However, there is an opportunity for discussion during the planning process.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, that was a very interesting but not particularly easy debate to sum up and comment on. If I may, I will stay rather tightly focused on the management of the project and I need to ask the Minister some questions. I think he is saying that there will be a public body to manage the project, but now is not the time to set it up. I disagree with that, of course, because it seems that there is a whole raft of things on which it would be better to give the new management body the time to work it out and to do some important things.
The Minister has also said that if anything needs to be done and it is not at all clear who is to do it, the Secretary of State would be responsible for doing it. My experience, which is considerable, is that that is completely impractical. It amounts to a non-answer, because the Secretary of State is so far away from the front line of the battle that it is just impractical to maintain that she can sort it out. I insist that it would be better, and much more workmanlike, to have a body properly authorised by Parliament, accountable and up for being asked all the detailed questions.
Let me give a few examples. When the construction starts, is the Minister saying that only 7.5% of the park will be involved? It would be very interesting to have, in the middle of the letting of a contract for the basement box, an answer to the question about what percentage of the park will be involved and what rules will be needed.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, at the moment there does not seem to be a decision-making process that can deal with, for example, the relationship between the project and its promoter and the park. If we had a non-departmental public body, what its chairman would say, if he took my advice, is that we need the best possible relationship we can foster with the park. We need an agreement. We need a pretty detailed memorandum of understanding. We cannot work without having some rules, whereby we know what you are doing and what I am doing, because we are being made jointly responsible for the future of this great park.
When it comes to improvements, on what authority is the Minister saying that his department will be responsible for improvements? Has he got an agreement with the DCMS, which is responsible for the park, or are we going to have a parliamentary turf war about it?
Quite honestly, all the comments that have been made relate to the need for clarity and certainty, and the need for us to be able to see who is in charge, who is accountable and, if something happens, to whom we go with a prospect of getting an enforceable answer. We have not been comforted—and I have not been comforted in the least.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Given the time and the importance that I attach to the need to have a clear management structure, I will leave it there, but we will come back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcarron
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, the well-known Buxton memorial commemorates the Abolition of Slavery Act 1833 and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Buxton’s son, Charles, who was also an MP. It was designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866, and it was historically significant enough at the time to be placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957. It was placed very deliberately on an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is grade 2 listed on both architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it commemorates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I will speak to my Amendments 11, 12 and 37 in this group.
As my noble friend Lord Strathcarron said, this well-known memorial commemorates the 1833 Act to emancipate slaves and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Charles Buxton MP, the son of Thomas Fowell Buxton, and designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866 and originally placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there in 1949 and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957, being placed carefully at an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is a grade 2 listed monument both on architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it marks.
The setting of the monument will undoubtedly be harmed by the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Even the planning inspector, who ultimately recommended the approval of the memorial and learning centre, accepted that there would be significant harm; however, he felt that the other benefits—having ignored the impediments of the 1900 Act—outweighed this harm.
Like my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, I am grateful to the architect member of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust who has measured the distance between the memorial and the riverside as approximately 5 metres. If the proposals for the Holocaust memorial go forward, the Buxton memorial will be just 2 metres away from the courtyard drop. Those proposals include the suggestion for a stone bench around that 2-metre edge of the memorial. Were this to occur, it would create a pinch point, with the remaining crowds walking along the riverside. I suggest that that is quite unacceptable. The Buxton memorial is a vital part of British history and it should not be infringed upon or sidelined.
I stress that this is not a matter of prioritising a monument to the abolition of slavery over the extermination of 6 million Jews. We on this side of the argument all say that there should be an appropriately sized and relevant monument to the Holocaust in Victoria Tower Gardens. We reject the grotesque, oversized Adjaye fins as not suitable for this space. These giant fins would overwhelm the Buxton memorial; any poky little path between it and the fins or the learning centre should be at least 8 metres wide, so that the memorial can be properly seen from a reasonable distance.
I do not know whether noble Lords have ever gone up Parliament Street on the southern side and looked across at the Treasury and the FCDO buildings. They are quite magnificent, but you cannot appreciate their beauty since you are only 30 yards away. They are as magnificent as the government buildings in Washington or Paris, but, in Paris, Baron Haussmann made the streets so wide that you can see and appreciate the beauty from a distance. I suggest that we need that same principle to apply to the Buxton memorial and to any properly sized Holocaust monument. They should be magnificent and visible from all parts of the gardens. The awful thing about Adjaye’s giant fins is that, since he could not design a proper monument to honour 6 million Jews, he went for size and the same monument that was rejected by Ottawa.
I am not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but I have looked at dozens and dozens of artist impressions of the Adjaye monument and I am stumped. I am willing to be corrected and pointed in the right direction, but I cannot find any artist impression which has got more than 16 fins. The thing is going to have 23 fins, as represented in the plan, but I cannot find any artist impression showing me what 23 fins would look like. It has been minimised to show 16 fins, and so these impressions show that the 16 fins do not interfere with the Buxton memorial at all. As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist but, if anyone has got an artist impression with the 23 fins, please send it to me.
I appreciate that when the great and the good are conned by architectural psychobabble into accepting a design, they do not then want to admit that they got it wrong. I can see my colleagues digging in as deep on this as Adjaye’s bunker. However, if we are forced to accept this second-best solution and have the 23 fins, let us make sure that they are not so gigantic as to dominate the gardens and obscure the Buxton memorial or the view of the magnificent southern gable of Parliament.
If one of the key components here is supposed to be the underground learning centre, grossly inadequate though it is, then surely we do not need such a giant monstrosity on top of it. If we have to have a monstrosity, let us have a smaller monstrosity. My Amendment 11 says that any Holocaust monument must not exceed the dimensions of the Buxton memorial. That would leave ample scope for a good and magnificent Holocaust monument.
The base of the Buxton memorial is octagonal, about 12 feet in diameter with open arches on the eight sides, and is supported on clustered shafts of polished Devonshire marble. I will not go into all of the details, but what was cleverly designed into the memorial is quite magnificent. All of that magnificent work and story is delivered in something that is 12 feet wide and about 40 feet high. If we can commemorate something as important as the abolition of slavery, where some estimates say that 2 million died in transit, we can commemorate the murder of 6 million Jews in a similarly and appropriately sized monument.
Of course, the Buxton memorial was not always there; it was originally in Parliament Square before it was moved. There were heated debates in Parliament on moving it, and the last word must go to Lord Winster, a junior minister under Clement Attlee, who said:
“This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was the very negation of humanity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/1949; col. 1430.]
I suggest that those words should apply to the Holocaust memorial as well. It is very fitting. That is why the Buxton memorial must not be diminished or hidden by giant, irrelevant bronze fins, à la the discredited Adjaye design.
My Amendment 37 seeks to protect the path used by 95 % of the local people and visitors who use the gardens. The promoters say that they will try to keep open the path alongside the river. I travel through the gardens twice a day when the House is sitting, unless we are sitting so late that the garden is closed. I have only once in 30 years gone along the huge detour of the river path, just to see if it were worthwhile—hardly anyone uses it.
However, on the main footpath, which runs parallel to Millbank, I see daily heavy use. Each morning and evening I will see four or five people exercising their doggies and collecting any mess. The main footpath is essential for them. Every morning, at a regular time, I see two or three nannies with tiny tots in tow. These kiddies are no more than 18 inches high, in their little yellow vests, and each nanny will have two or three of them on either side, safely holding hands or tied together. They make very slow but safe progress along this path. I do not know where they come from or where they go, but I have never seen them on the river path. Indeed, that may be too far for them to walk.
These are some of the main users. The others are individuals—not organised games—playing football or other games. There are those having little picnics, but not hundreds of people and 40 buses squashed into the place to have picnics.
If this main footpath is taken over for construction purposes and cannot be used, thousands of users every day will be deprived of the use of the garden. None of us will want to take a detour round by the river path to get to the route that we normally use.
The promoters need to create access for their construction equipment—possibly at the southern end of the park, where the children’s playground currently is, and possibly a new one—so that the whole of the current path, the main footpath alongside Millbank, remains open during construction and afterwards. It should not be beyond their ability or that of the department to tell the constructors to create a new access route so that the path can be kept open. Those are my amendments and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 25 and 40 in my name. Before I do so, I express support for Amendment 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, about the refreshment kiosk. I believe that it is neither appropriate nor fitting to have somebody selling burgers and chips and ice cream in a place that should be devoted to reflection and remembrance of the cruel murder of 6 million people and the lifelong impact on the lives of survivors and their families. I also support Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on fire risk. That is on the basis of public safety, which underpins my amendments as well.
Among the dangers associated with the choice of siting an underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, the most serious is the flood risk. This is a critical issue, given that large numbers of visitors, including children and people with disabilities, are expected to visit. The site chosen for the learning centre is in flood zone 3a according to the Environment Agency, which means that it has a one in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding if undefended. Normally, planning regulations would not allow a basement development in a zone 3a area. Atkins and Co carried out a flood zone 3 risk assessment for the original planning application. It is clear that the risks revealed by that report have not been correctly considered.
There are four kinds of flood risk, the most serious of which is the risk of inundation from the nearby tidal River Thames. This could happen either by overtopping of the embankment wall, if the water level is higher than the defences, or by breach flooding, in the case of a break in the wall. The latter would be catastrophic to life and property, as the proposed development is below ground level and the design of the proposed building has no above-ground refuge.
I turn first to the danger of overtopping. Because of the development’s proximity to the river, the Environment Agency requires that it must be a minimum of 16 metres from the flood defence wall—presumably to avoid the development undermining the wall’s foundation—and that the wall must be demonstrably high enough and in good condition for the lifetime of the development. A visual assessment at the time showed some defects that required maintenance, ongoing monitoring and inspection. However, the Environment Agency had no current plans for maintenance of the river wall at this location. I therefore ask: who is going to do it? We do not really know the effect on the wall of the construction work of this major underground development.
Because of climate change, and the fact that presumably the building is meant to last until at least until 2100, if not longer, the EA plans that the wall’s height will need to be raised by then to take account of the rise in sea level and consequent river level. By then, the EA expects the peak river level to rise by 950 millimetres above the current level. When this is reached, it will be more than 1 metre above the general level of Victoria Tower Gardens and the entrance to the proposed below-ground learning centre. However, there is a margin of error of only half a metre between the proposed increase in wall height and the expected river level, which is very little in a storm. The learning centre could have to be closed, not just on three days a year but on several days every month because of the risk of river water overtopping the wall.
Flooding has happened here before. The southern section of the site is partially within the area of the historic flooding information. However, data confidence is low because the records were hand-drawn and their extent is limited. It could be even more at risk than the records show.
Breach flooding is much riskier. Westminster City Council’s map shows what would happen if there was a breach in the embankment wall—perhaps in the case of terrorist action, contact by a vessel, a disastrous collapse of an adjacent building, or undermining of the foundations of the wall by unusual pressure from several storms one after the other, such as we have had this winter. What the map clearly shows is that the site is not only smack bang in the middle of the likely inundation area but right in the middle of the area that would be flooded within 30 minutes of the commencement of such an inundation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 26. First, I add that, living in Hertfordshire, I am in touch with the distinguished Buxton family of today, one of whom is about to become our high sheriff sometime soon. They have expressed to me in correspondence something of their great concern.
Amendment 26 seeks to prevent the establishment of refreshment kiosks or static outbuildings in Victoria Tower Gardens. The first thing I want to mention relates to the preservation of the atmosphere of the park, which provides a valuable place of rest and relaxation to so many. Hot dog stands, souvenir stalls, litter and crowding would significantly change the character and experience of the park. If this project is as successful as it is planned to be, it will attract large numbers of people and potentially long queues. I believe that it would be proportionate and necessary to protect the park from this in the Bill. It has already been questioned whether it would be appropriate to have snacks, crisps and drinks for sale at the site of a memorial that is reflecting on the extraordinary suffering of so many people.
Further, the plans proposed for the centre show a new kiosk at the southern end of the garden, near the children’s playground. The Select Committee reported significant concerns regarding large crowds of visitors to the proposed centre at a kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground, raising child safety issues. Its recommendation 1 is that the kiosk be removed from present plans. Significantly, in response to this recommendation, the promoter stated only that they would look carefully at the design and location of the kiosk, not that they would remove it. The promoter has given the Select Committee an assurance that a review will be carried out with the design team of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to the gardens, including visitors to the proposed centre.
My concerns around the enforceability or account-ability of the assurances given by the promoter, which I mentioned earlier with reference to Amendment 22, also apply here, and give rationale for my seeking to enshrine these restrictions in the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the excellent presentation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of her Amendments 25 and 40.
I would never accuse the Minister of being predictable—I would not offend him in that way—but I think I hear a little echo in my ear of him making a speech in response to the noble Baroness, saying that all these things could be dealt with at the planning proceedings. If he is going to say that, I just remind the Committee about the reality of planning proceedings.
First, they are very large and expensive on an issue such as this. Every aspect of the planning is considered at those planning proceedings. I hope, in a few minutes, to move my Amendment 15, which relates to security, and a similar point arises here. If we can discover at an early stage, through the mechanism that the noble Baroness suggests in Amendment 25, that this site is too dangerous, for flooding reasons, for planning consent to be given, let us discover that now and not during planning proceedings on the 47th day of the 78-day hearing—if we are lucky that it is that short. All that the noble Baroness is suggesting is that there should be a report, but that report would define whether this site was fit for the purposes expressed in Clauses 1 and 2.
I suggest that some aspects of this issue are, for obvious reasons, of genuine interest to Parliament, not least its proximity to Parliament and the fact that, for example, flooding in Victoria Tower Gardens because of the construction of this underground edifice—if that is not a contradiction in terms—could affect our enjoyment, as people working here, and the enjoyment of those who work for us, of what goes on in this Parliament.
I just remind the Minister of what happened last Saturday. A quite small incident occurred in which somebody managed to get through security and climb up the Elizabeth Tower. I promise that I will say nothing that is sub judice—nothing to do with the perpetrator or the case. If that had happened on a Monday when we were here, Parliament would probably have had to be adjourned for two days for that issue to be dealt with, on grounds of safety and security. One of the ways that we can deal with such issues, before a lengthy planning appeal, is to allow the sort of measure proposed here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have an amendment that I put in this group because it should go with the amendment introduced so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
On 4 March, the Minister was asked whether a new full planning permission application would go back to Westminster City Council. He replied that
“that is in the hands of the designated Minister”,—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
so I hold out no great hope for revised planning permission.
My amendment relates to safety. I was pleased to be able to be heard by the Select Committee. I draw attention to its report, which stated that the promoter has undertaken to
“make representations to the Secretary of State in relation to security considerations”
and
“consult with the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council”.
There is no mention of the London Fire Brigade, yet here we have a proposal for an underground learning centre with a single entrance.
I had quite a lot of difficulty, so I am grateful to those who managed to let me see some floor plans of this proposed education centre. I was becoming increasingly concerned about the security and fire risks—and the gas risk, which links to fire—that could be incurred in an underground centre. I notice that there are several staircases, which all come up into a communal area, and so-called fire escape routes.
I then looked at disasters that have happened underground. We all remember the King’s Cross fire, in which there were 31 fatalities. One of the findings was that there was a flashover—the trench effect where a tongue of fire comes up into a central area so fast that nobody can escape. Here we are talking about people being trapped underground. In that fire, there were alternative routes that a lot of people escaped through—although one was blocked by a locked door, which aggravated the disaster. The other thing is that, if you use water fog equipment, people have to be trained in its use. Has there been consideration of whether the paint and surfaces used in this underground space will be fire resistant?
I also looked at what happened in the Moscow theatre siege. People were held in an enclosed space and fentanyl gas was used, which rendered them unconscious very quickly. One problem was that it suppressed respiration in many of the unconscious people and there was not adequate naloxone available to reverse the effect. I can envisage someone going in with a canister of something like fentanyl gas in a plastic container and releasing it. I hope noble Lords will excuse me if they do not like the language, but we know that people hide things in body cavities; it would not be difficult to hide 10 to 20 mil of some compressed gas in either the rectum or vagina and go underground.
My other concern, which relates to that, came from the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo underground, where it was evident that people had to get to the victims rapidly but there was no advanced airway support available, hence the mortality rate went up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I had almost finished. I stress that I am not against there being a memorial. My worry is the design as put forward for this learning centre and where it is—in a limited space, with the potential for danger that would bring it into deep disrepute, very rapidly, in the event of an incident.
The last thing to say—I am hesitant to talk about it, but I will because security is terribly important—is that we know what happened when Novichok was used in Salisbury. I cannot see how any security screening system will adequately detect somebody with serious malintent trying to destroy the whole essence of this learning centre by creating a terrorist-type attack. There would be real problems evacuating people at great speed from a space underground.
With that, I leave my concerns on the table in relation to the design that we have seen and the placing of the centre.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I thank the many friends with whom I share so much politically and with whom I do not agree on this matter. I hope they will excuse me if I speak my mind, as they have spoken theirs.
I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library, that I sat on the Holocaust Commission of David Cameron, and that my mother is a Holocaust survivor, all of which gives me a special interest in this debate.
It was interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised. Funnily enough, the siting of the Buxton memorial was one of the main reasons, originally, for my being persuaded that Victoria Tower Gardens would be the ideal place for the Holocaust memorial. I think it will create a garden of conscience that links the Pankhurst statue to the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial, right by the Houses of Parliament. It is also interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised because, when it was placed there, Lord Rea argued that it should not be, because Victoria Tower Gardens was a tranquil place and putting a memorial there would be a bad idea. We are now being told that because that memorial is there, we should not put anything else there.
It is the case that, when we are talking about the Holocaust memorial being not as nice as the Buxton memorial, Viscount Swinton and Earl Jowitt both argued that the Buxton memorial should not be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens because it was a Gothic monstrosity and hideously ugly. This just proves my mother’s point, which she made to me when everyone said that no one would ever go to Brent Cross Shopping Centre, which was near our house: people can find a reason to be against everything.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Does the noble Lord not feel that some of his comments are just a little flippant? We are talking about the safety of people’s lives here.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I am literally repeating the noble Baroness’s points. If she feels that they are flippant, maybe she should not have made them. These are all points that were raised.
In addition, it was said that people will be trampled to death in the communal areas and poisoned with Novichok. These are all points that were made seriously, and that could apply, of course, to any structure. We are talking about building a reasonably modest structure near Parliament, with four rooms underneath it. We have managed to build nuclear power stations, railways and shopping centres in this country, almost all of them without all these terrible consequences happening because people are able to organise themselves and plan things so that disasters are coped with.
We absolutely have the capability of doing that with this centre. These are all alarmist ideas that will not come to pass. This is an extremely simple proposal for a very fitting memorial. I can understand why people might not want it, particularly if they live nearby, but it is a fitting response to the Holocaust and it is in the right place.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Finkelstein said that this is a modest memorial. It may be a modest underground centre, which is inadequate for the purpose, but it is 23 giant bronze fins that will dominate the park. There is nothing modest about that at all. I think he diminishes some of the concerns that people have.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, my concern is not that terrorists may set off some device underground—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is the best person to advise on this—but that they may set off a harmless smoke grenade or device underground, so that everyone piles up outside and that is when the terrorists execute their main attack.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
So that it is not seen as though I have raised points that were not raised, it was specifically said that poisonous gas would be set off. I did not make that up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I would like to correct the record. I did not say that it will be set off. I am concerned that there has not been a fire assessment and an air flow assessment. I hope that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to reassure us that there has been an adequate air flow assessment relating to the proposed architectural brief that we have seen. I made the point that I am not against a memorial. I think it is completely inappropriate to suggest that those of us who have raised concern over this design and the place of it are somehow opposed to having an appropriate memorial. Many of us have relatives who had deeply traumatic experiences. We have not paraded them here. We are dealing with what it is suggested is to be constructed and with how we move forward.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I do not belong to that small group of people who think that any old memorial will do, as long as we get one. Let me remind your Lordships that we already have at least half a dozen Holocaust memorials in this country and at least 21 learning centres, including the much-praised one set up by the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. I cannot see anything going up in VTG that will better that.
I want to add a few comments on the three topics that are in this group: the kiosk, flooding and the memorials. I feel very strongly about the kiosk, and I am grateful to the Select Committee. Indeed, I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for turning up today and at other hearings, given that they sat through the objections for about six weeks, with great patience, and were very constrained in what they could say. Their presence here, I think, speaks for itself. We are grateful.
On the kiosk, the Select Committee said that its principal concern was
“the congregation of very large numbers of visitors at the proposed new kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground. This raises child safety issues. Unless there is some overriding necessity for the proposed new kiosk, we recommend”
that it should be removed “from the present plans”. This was in response to my submission to the committee that there should be no food and drink sales, let alone souvenirs and hamburger vans, in the gardens or nearby if the memorial is sited there.
It seems to me that to allow a kiosk shows a profound misunderstanding of what a memorial should be reminding us of. A café of a coke-and-crisps nature, which is what this would be, because it would be for park-goers, visitors and all sorts, is deeply disrespectful as a memorial to people who starved to death. Having a café there will simply cause more congestion, litter and crowding. Those are the reasons for the amendment.
This café would not be like one you might find in Yad Vashem or in Washington, because it would be open to the whole neighbourhood and everyone who turns up. A new café would bring all the detritus that such cafés inevitably bring to a public park, with thousands of people queuing and using it—both those coming out to do so and passers-by. It is not a good idea. Indeed, if it were removed, there would be more room for the playground, which is being reduced in size.
In response, the promoter said no more than that they will look at the design and location carefully. Driven as it is by commercial attitudes and wanting to maximise the day-trip atmosphere, I have grave doubts about this. It may also be thinking of the many builders who will be in the gardens for decades doing restoration and renewal, who will want their mugs of builder’s tea, just adding to the inappropriate atmosphere. The presence of not only the kiosk but crowds in the gardens will no doubt bring vans selling burgers and ice cream, and souvenir sellers. I have no confidence that by-laws will prevent this. It is imperative that if a memorial atmosphere is to be created, such smelly and noisy intrusions should be prevented—making more room for the playground, as I said.
On flooding, I defer, of course, to the masterly presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The trouble with all the pictures we have seen of the proposed memorial is that it is always in the sunshine, and it is always sketches. Rain and inclement weather seem never to be considered in the plans. For example, the promoters have mentioned gatherings of hundreds of people on the sloping entrance to the learning centre, but in reality, would they stand there for hours in the rain, especially if they are elderly?
We do not know what escape routes there would be if water entered the basement. As has been explained, there is no above-ground refuge space. Even a mild incursion of water into the gardens over the little wall would seep in and certainly make a visit unpleasantly soggy. There is a picture on Twitter of the river water going over the little wall last summer. If the local drainage system is overwhelmed by heavy rain, the water will find its way into basements. Indeed, a basement dwelling in this area would not be permitted at all. The only solution is a redesign, with the entrance far above any possible flood level—or, of course, to move to a better site. Central sites of as much importance as this are available.
Visitors’ lives are being put at risk to make a political point about the Westminster location, which is the source of all the trouble. Will the Minister explain why the detailed objections to the location because of flooding, expressed in letters from the Environment Agency to Westminster City Council in 2019, are not being dealt with? We need a full report on the risks and how they can be dealt with, given by structural engineers in conjunction with the Environment Agency.
Finally, I will say a word or two about the Buxton memorial. The Buxton family is very much with us. Indeed, it has been a very good coincidence that Mr Richard Buxton, a direct descendant of Thomas Buxton, happens to be a planning solicitor and has worked with our group of objectors all along. We know that the planning inspector accepted that the development would cause harm to the Buxton memorial.
It is worse than that, because the problem with the inspector’s inquiry was that he did not have in mind, and was ignorant of, the 1900 Act prohibiting building in Victoria Tower Gardens. Had he been able to take that on board and balance the benefits of the 1900 prohibition against the damage to the memorial, I think his words would have been even more strident. With the proposed developments in place, the prominence of the Buxton memorial will be largely removed, because the view will change from open parkland to one focused on the nature of the memorial.
The very few who were consulted beforehand were told that any design for the gardens had to harmonise with the Buxton memorial. They were told in Manchester that planning permission was a mere formality anyway. Not only that: the Windrush demand for a monument to slavery in Victoria Tower Gardens was turned down for lack of space. It seems wrong to diminish the visibility of the Buxton memorial, which provides a focus and an educational asset that could perhaps be developed to cater for the views of other groups that are rightly concerned with this long and shameful practice. I would deplore anything that devalued its importance.
Obviously, then, I support the amendments in this group. The Holocaust memorial should be no bigger than the Buxton memorial. There should be room to walk around it to enable it to be seen properly. I can safely surmise that future generations will think of us, quite rightly, as Philistines and wreckers if we allow the destruction, in visual terms, of these memorials.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I start by referring to my interests, which I set out at earlier stages of the Bill. I speak now in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11, in particular, because it really is the key to reconciling the positions of my two noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Finkelstein. It goes to the heart of the Bill because, whatever the Minister may say, this seems to be a Bill about planning. These amendments go to the heart of the planning issues in the Bill: the Minister is shaking his head but, by the very fact that this is a hybrid Bill, it brings into it private interests that, by definition in this case, cover planning matters. The Minister is nodding at that. Whether we like it or not, planning matters are brought in.
More fundamentally than that, there are two substantive clauses in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that Clause 2 fundamentally changes the planning regime applying to Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know how we can get away without either discussing planning matters or having the Minister respond to them, rather than saying, “These are all for later”.
I was sorry not to have been here for the first day in Committee, but I read the Official Report carefully. The Minister said:
“Planning permission is still to be granted”—
we know that—
“and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
If I understood him correctly, he rowed back on that a little last week, but, if I heard him correctly earlier this afternoon, he said that these questions about the planning process will be for the designated Minister. It would be very helpful to the Committee if, when he responds, the Minister could either explain whether noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity—that would be fine because the Minister speaks for the Government and the Bill can enshrine that; it would be welcomed by many of us if the Bill did enshrine our having plenty of opportunity, which could be via restarting the planning process or somewhere else—or correct himself by saying that there is nothing in the Bill to give us any comfort about the future planning, because it is all in the hands of the designated Minister. It has to be one or the other.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Obviously we can all differ on what is reasonable and what is modest, but it was not a misrepresentation of what anyone said. I just read back what people said.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 11. As my noble friend has just said, if Amendment 11 were adhered to, it is possible that the various sides of this argument could come together with a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. I have never read any newspaper article or heard anybody say that there should not be a memorial.
My noble friend Lord Finkelstein described rather movingly the various other memorials in the gardens. They are memorials to good triumphing over evil in the development of human history. It would be totally right to have another such memorial in that place that could be revered. There would be no question of having a kiosk selling ice cream and burgers beside it. It would be a memorial. If it fitted into the description in Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would be an appropriate size, and we would all hope that it would be designed by an artist who would produce a beautiful memorial. The problem is that unless we adhere to Amendment 11, there will also be a learning centre underground which, as various noble Lords have said, would bring with it so many risks. The greatest risk of all is why, if we want to produce a proper memorial to a terrible period in history when 6 million Jews died and many more suffered, would we put it underground where it could not be seen or admired and simply caused problems?
Let us have a memorial, a beautiful memorial that everyone can admire, but let us have a learning centre somewhere else where it would be safe, accessible and non-controversial, a place where children could be taken and, yes, possibly have their ice-cream and burgers if they are on a school trip, a different place where it would not get in the way of a beautiful memorial. It is difficult to understand how this Government, who profess to care about green spaces, about children not being on their phones but being outside and about the preservation of the environment should want to support a plan to take away the utility of one of the very few green spaces in this part of London.
This is not about just Victoria Tower Gardens, Parliament and history. It is about the way in which families in this area live their everyday lives. Children play in that park. I had a child who played in that park every day because his mother—me—did not have time to take him any further afield, as I was constantly in the House of Commons. That park is important to families and to the welfare of children. Why on earth would we hide under that park a learning centre when we could put up a beautiful memorial which everyone unanimously supports?
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the last two speakers because one of the problems that we face in this Committee is that it seems we are being asked in this Bill to approve something, the details of which we do not really know. A lot of the debate has been about planning consent. The point—I am proposing to come back with an amendment later that may elaborate on it further—is that the 1900 Act imposed certain statutory restrictive covenants—I think that is a fair way of putting it—in respect of this building and Victoria Tower Gardens.
The history of restrictive covenants goes back a long time in English land law and antedates planning consent. The point about a restrictive covenant is that it is not applied against the same criteria as when planning permission is granted. We are being asked to release the restrictive covenants when we do not know what the actual proposition in front of us will be. It is a case of “Rely on me and trust me”, but I am afraid I do not. That is why we need—
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I feel slightly in the position of that well-known 16th-century Spanish jurist at the University of Salamanca who was arrested by the Inquisition when giving a lecture. Fourteen years later, after he was released, he came back and said: “As I was saying before I was interrupted”. My simple proposition is that we should be entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenants of which we are custodian. I shall leave it at that.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is a reason why we do not know the detail. It is because it is for the planning system, and this Bill allows the planning system to deal with the memorial. As I understand it, that is the whole point. It is not for us to grant, debate or decide on planning grounds that will be dealt with by the planning system when it eventually gets there, after Parliament has completed its deliberations.
I was not going to comment on this group, but I want very gently to respond to something that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said earlier. She suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, had paraded his victimhood, which, frankly—
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am sorry, but I really think we should focus on the Bill in front of us. It is just not helpful to have this to-and-fro between people and to make accusations about things that were not said. I will be interested to go back and see the printed record when it comes out. In the event that I have caused offence to an individual, I will duly apologise, because there was no intention whatever to cause any offence to anyone alive or deceased.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I was simply responding to something that the noble Baroness said, but I accept what she has just said.
On the point about the kiosk, at the moment there is a kiosk where children and others can buy refreshments when visiting the park. If that kiosk were removed as part of this proposal, the Government would have been attacked for that. They are also being attacked because the kiosk will still be there when the memorial is built. To be fair to them on this, they could not have satisfied people either way.
I do not think it is at all offensive to visit the memorial and learning centre and then want to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss what you have seen and learned with the people who you visited it with. When I went to Yad Vashem with my dad, he was not the least bit offended that there was a restaurant there, where we had lunch. In fact, every time I have visited Yad Vashem, we have had lunch before or after. There is nothing offensive about refreshments being available at or near the memorial.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in the nicest possible way, I will not challenge my noble friend Lord Finkelstein but merely comment that he must have better eyesight than I do. When I look at the representations of the fins, they do not seem to be entirely modest. They are absolutely massive. He said that they are appropriate. I ask those with strong Jewish heritage whether they have ever heard the figure of 23 or 22—the gaps—mentioned before. All my life, the only figure which mattered for the Holocaust was 6 million Jews slaughtered, massacred, killed. The idea is that these giant fins are somehow appropriate because the gaps between them represent 22 countries. Has any noble Lord in this Committee ever heard of that before, apart from in this planning application? To my knowledge, neither 23 fins nor 22 gaps have anything to do with Jewish history. If we want something appropriate, it must represent 6 million Jews slaughtered.
We will come in a later amendment to what would be an appropriate design, but I am also prompted to ask a question on the refreshment kiosk. I use the park regularly, and in summertime or when there is a coach party to the Commons, the kiddies come into the park. They have their sandwich wrappers and a huge amount of Pret A Manger bags, and they all religiously try to put them into the litter bins. At times, those bins have been stuffed absolutely full and litter is spread all around. If there is a refreshment kiosk for thousands of people, that is likely to happen as well, and we will see a huge amount of litter.
Some may argue that we should have more litter bins and fill them up. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with his expertise here, may comment on this. The first thing that the Metropolitan Police would do when there is a terrorist threat is remove all the bins. You cannot get a litter bin at Euston station or anywhere else because they are a terrorist threat. We could have a kiosk selling sandwiches, crisps and so on and all the people having their picnics, but end up with no litter bins to put the rubbish in. If there are litter bins, they ought to be policed and patrolled.
This is not a trivial point; I am not trying to diminish the whole argument by talking about litter. It is a legitimate point about other people’s enjoyment of the gardens. They may also want to have their picnic and sandwiches but find that there is no place to put the garbage afterwards.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, on that last point, that is exactly what the management of a non-departmental public body would discuss with the management of the gardens—how they will cope with litter and what facilities there are. They would need to work together, but we have not got anybody whatever to work with on the garden management at the moment. Until we have a public body, there will not be anybody.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11. If, along the way, I gently chide my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, who I greatly admire, I hope he will forgive me. He made a speech last week in Committee, which he used in his article in the Times on Wednesday, and very important and powerful it is. He concluded by saying, “Let’s get building”, and that is where I part company with him because we are not arguing about a memorial. I think we are all saying, universally, that we want to have a memorial. The question is: what are we going to build? To say at the end of his article “Let’s get building” sort of implies that the Committee was somehow opposing the idea that there should be a memorial at all.
From my point of view, the design we presently have is outsized, out of sync and out of style. For my noble friend to say that this is like objecting to the Brent Cross shopping centre is really not fair to those of us who have a serious concern about what it will look like and how it will work. I think that the words, “reasonably modest”, which have been used a lot this afternoon, are really shown up when along with my noble friend’s article was a picture of what is proposed. How that can be described as “reasonably modest”, when you see a picture of it is quite hard to understand. Also—this was probably not my noble friend but his picture editor—the fact that it says underneath this extraordinarily ugly memorial
“The memorial embodies what Britain fought for and her Parliament stands for”
seems doubly disappointing. I hope that we can find a way, following my noble friend Lord Sassoon’s suggestion, to stick to the principle that we want a memorial and find a way that is more in sync with its surroundings, as my noble friend suggests in his Amendment 11.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Just to clarify the point on “reasonably modest”, it has been a reasonable subject for discussion and obviously opinions will differ about how big this ought to be. In the Holocaust Commission, we had a debate about the different designs. Some people liked this design and others did not, but my point about “reasonably modest” concerned itself with the difficulty of building this memorial or, indeed, anything, nearby. I was just observing that we manage, as humanity, to cope with quite a lot of building and this is, on the scale of many of the things that we build, “reasonably modest”. Thus, the problems that were raised seem have been overcome on some quite big projects in comparison with this one. That is the point of my argument about reasonable modesty.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our interests at each sitting, but I draw attention to my interests in the register relating to this project. I do not want to bring any discord but I feel I am about to enter into the war of the Buxtons, because my noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not in his place, asked me to pass on a message to the Committee from Jonathan Buxton, who is very happy for me to quote it:
“I would like to think that if Sir Thomas and his fellow abolitionists were around today, they would be 100% in favour of the Holocaust memorial”.
I understand of course that other Buxtons disagree with this, but I felt that the Committee might like to hear it.
I want to say two other things, but first I turn to this question of the kiosk, which I think is very badly formed. My noble friend is right: you can go to Yad Vashem and you do not need to go to the museum to use its facilities. You can get a hot dog outside the memorial in Washington and I do not think that in any way affects the spirituality of the thing.
One of my great delights, for the past 50 years of my association with Lady Pickles, is that we often spend our weekends looking at various cathedrals around the country. It is a passion of mine. I can tell noble Lords that you can get a very nice cappuccino in Lincoln Cathedral and a very nice date and walnut cake in York. In listening to the right reverend Prelate, I thought that perhaps I should go to St Albans Cathedral, and wondered what I might expect there. I am delighted to say that, if I go there, I can go to the Abbot’s Kitchen café, which is open from 10 am until 4 pm, and treat Lady Pickles to a coffee and walnut cake for £4.05. I do not think that that will in any way affect my enjoyment of the spirituality of the cathedral; it certainly has not spoilt it in the many cathedrals that I have had the pleasure to go round, both in this country and in France.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Lord was formerly a distinguished Minister in charge of planning. Does he not recall that, on several occasions, as a Minister, he called in planning applications and took those cases out of the hands of the local authority, where they would have been considered, and made decisions that dramatically affected the future of those proposals? Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between a case where somebody applies for planning permission to build even a memorial and a case where there is a parliamentary Bill that allows a Minister to spend money on that memorial?
Lord Pickles (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on me; I should be able to reply to him.
If I had expressed a view about a planning application, I would not have dealt with it; I would not have called it in. We are very strict. I must say that we know what is going on here, with people asking, “Will the Minister give a guarantee?” That would be predetermination. The noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer; he knows that it would be grounds for a judicial review if we predetermined it. We separate carefully, to ensure that the people taking decisions on planning have not expressed a view on it and are not subject to views expressed by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I assured that in the past five years.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am a lawyer; I am also a chartered surveyor in the planning and development division of the RICS. I worked professionally in this area, a long time ago, for a number of years.
The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the covenant and the planning consent. We are not being asked to form any view about the merits of a planning application or anything like that, because were that to be the case, the draft legislation in front of us would make it explicitly clear that we were taking by statute the power to grant planning permission. The two consents run in parallel, and we should view them like that. The criteria that apply in determining each of the two are not the same.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, though I may say it less elegantly. The reason we are talking about planning in this Committee is that we simply do not trust the Government—the previous Government or this Government—not to overrule Westminster City Council. If the Government will give a cast-iron commitment that they will abide by whatever Westminster City Council decides—that they will not call it in or get an inspector to reverse it, and that the Minister will not reverse it either—then all my concerns about planning would be removed. If the Government will trust the decision of Westminster City Council, I think no noble Lords in this Committee would be talking about the planning application.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining so well the reasoning behind why we should wait for the planning system. I was going to say something very similar, but now I do not need to because of the timing. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give this Committee more detail about the process and the legalities, and about the reasons why we are doing what we are in this Bill, and where it should not then have anything to do with the planning system. That is an important thing to do and I ask that we have it in writing, to clarify this well in time for Report.
I was going to say something about all the other amendments in this group, but I feel that they would be much better discussed within the planning system and not within this Bill.
I will mention something about tea rooms. Interestingly, when I came in today, I was very much in support of not having them, but, having listened to the evidence and thought about it, it is actually not a bad thing to have that in a park that is used by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons. I certainly will not be supporting that proposal any longer. As far as I am concerned, all the other amendments should be dealt with in the planning system, so it is not worth my taking up any more of the Committee’s time.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these amendments. This group covers a set of topics relating to the potential impact of the proposed development. As we consider these topics, it is necessary to keep in mind the relationship between this Bill and the process for seeking planning consent.
The Bill does not include provisions to grant planning consent. I am quite sure that noble Lords would have criticised the Government forcefully if we had tried to bypass the normal route for seeking planning consent by including any such provisions in our Bill, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper process for considering a development such as the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Let me be clear in addressing the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in relation to the planning process, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, alluded to. We, as the applicant, stand by the current planning application. We do not intend to withdraw it. It is for the designated Minister to decide how to deal with the current application. We understand that he has three broad options: to invite written representations and then decide; to hold a further planning inquiry; or to hold a round-table discussion. All options would mean opportunities for opposing views to be considered. It is for the designated Minister to decide the approach.
The arrangements are perfectly proper. When they were challenged in the court in 2020, that challenge did not succeed. In all called-in applications, it is for the designated Minister to decide the mode of considering the application. We have given an assurance to the Lords Select Committee that we will make sure that Peers and MPs are notified when the process of retaking the planning decision starts. There will therefore be opportunities for people to make their views known. It will be up to the designated Minister to decide how to deal with those views, including whether to have a new inquiry.
The planning process requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies. The process enables a balancing exercise to be conducted, in which the benefits and impacts of any proposal can be properly assessed. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, and acknowledging the deep expertise that can be found across the Committee, I submit that we should be extremely wary of interfering in these processes. We are not sitting here as a planning committee. I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for setting this point out in detail. I will now turn to the amendments in question.
Amendment 7, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, relating to other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, would have the effect of tying the hands of the planning decision-maker and stopping the current proposal. The amendment would give protection to those memorials above and beyond the protections they already enjoy as listed buildings. We all want to ensure that the memorials and monuments in Victoria Tower Gardens, and their setting, are respected. Our design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It includes enhancements to the gardens that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials.
The planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in great detail at the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials before concluding that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. As drafted, the proposed change to Clause 2 is not necessary to ensure that memorials are given proper weight in the planning process. It would, however, act as a barrier to proceeding with the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 7.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
It is of course open to the person determining the planning application and/or the appeal—depending on the circumstances—to impose conditions that fundamentally change the scheme from the thing that is currently under discussion by us. Is that not right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately I did not get the gist of what the noble Lord said, but I assume he was talking about the future planning process.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My point is quite simply that the outcome of the planning process, if planning permission were to be granted, could be that the scheme would be permitted, but subject to conditions such that it would be completely different from what we are currently considering.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes, that could be the case. Again, it is for the designated Minister to set out the process; it is a decision for them.
Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concern the Buxton memorial. The Buxton memorial provides a striking and important reminder of the role that British parliamentarians played in the eventual ending of slavery across the British Empire, a point that many noble Lords made eloquently. It is perhaps fair to point out that its design is not to everyone’s taste. I noted that in a debate in the other place in 1949 considering plans for the remodelling of Parliament Square, the then Member of Parliament for Twickenham expressed the view that the Buxton memorial had “no artistic merit whatever”. That is not this Government’s view.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
The noble Lord did not address my point about UNESCO. This has nothing to do with planning processes. Under the World Heritage Convention, state parties—in this case, the UK Government—
“are also expected to protect the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed”.
Will the Minister confirm that the undertakings to UNESCO are not part of any planning process and answer my question about how the Government regard their obligations in this case to UNESCO? Do they know better what is not appropriate in a world heritage site?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We will discuss UNESCO on a later amendment. It will need a bit of explanation, and I would like to discuss it in depth. If he could wait for that group, I will discuss that point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it—I will look carefully at the official record to check that my understanding is correct—the Minister’s answer to the question about whether there will be a new planning process is, “Well, maybe”. He said that the Minister in charge has three options: to make the decision, to set up a new planning process or to have a round table. We do not know which, yet he has relied heavily in his responses to the various concerns raised on the fact that these will be considered in a planning application. Yet he also said that the Government will stick to the original planning application. Which is it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I was quite clear in saying that an existing planning application has gone in. This Bill is to disapply the 1900 Act to allow the project to proceed. The designated Minister will have a number of options, from which he must decide which is the best way forward for the planning process, but every option will include an opportunity for representations to be made.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there are three options and we do not know which the Minister is going to choose. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is the norm and to be expected. It is totally independent from the whole process. It is for him to decide how we will proceed with planning on this particular point; that is the normal process when Ministers are calling decisions. That is how these options work.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
This will be my last comment of the evening. Is there anyone in this Room who seriously believes that the Minister will pick the option of a fresh planning application to Westminster City Council? Of course he will not.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can the Minister explain what would happen to his three options in this scenario? On the day this Bill receives Royal Assent—if it does—what is there to stop the Minister saying within 24 hours, “The only obstacle that existed against giving planning permission last time has been removed, and I am giving it here and now”?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. I understand that noble Lords have lots of concerns, strong views and opinions on this matter, but there is a process in place in which the designated Minister is totally independent from the whole planning process. I cannot stand here and speak on behalf of an independent decision made by a Minister who is detached from this process. It is up to the Minister to decide how to take this forward and how to look at the application. My job here, in promoting this Bill in the Lords, is to look at these clauses and to ensure that we discuss and debate the clauses in front of us. I understand that there are lots of various concerns around the statutory planning process, but it is not for me to move forward with those. I have to look at the remit of the clauses ahead of us. The Minister will make his own decision—that is as it should be.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed. This has been a really interesting and, as always, passionate debate, with lots of great opinions on all sides.
I am aware that it has taken us four hours to discuss two groups, and we have not yet got on to the juicy subjects of security, how this project relates to restoration and renewal, and indeed the whole design. To save time, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for summing up the amendments that we heard about on flooding, security and the kiosk. Afterwards, there were some very useful contributions on planning from the noble Lords, Lord Sassoon and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing.
I find myself in agreement with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to reach out. It seems to me, from what I have heard over the past two days, as we are nearly at the end of the second day in Committee—this is just my opinion; I am not speaking for anyone else—that there is an acceptance that there should be a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. What is in dispute is its size, scale, ugliness and whatever else—those are subjective things—but my hearing suggests that the fact that there will be a memorial in the gardens has acceptance. The problems all relate to the learning centre: I cannot find anybody, except for the proposers, who are for it.
Last week, I was talking about this outside the Committee with one of the proposers, who said that there is no practical alternative. I was quite flabbergasted; this learning centre may or may not be many things but one thing it certainly is not is practical. We have yet to hear—I am sure that we will at some length—about the problems around traffic, security, restoration and renewal, and about the fact that this proposal is totally inadequate. It is far from practical.
As for there being no alternatives, there are loads of alternatives, and all of them close by. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested one that I personally found very acceptable: Richmond House, next to the Cenotaph —crane a slight neck there and you can see the Houses of Parliament. This would seem to satisfy every consideration, including the cost aspect, which we debated slightly on day one. I will not come back to it but I remind the Committee that we signed off the Elizabeth Tower at £29 million and it ended up costing £81 million. Let us face it, no one has the faintest idea what this memorial and learning centre—in particular the learning centre, which is where the construction costs will be—is going to cost.
I hope that, as we do not have much more time today—at this rate, we are going to be here for another 10 days or two weeks—the Government will show some flexibility and acknowledge the feeling that, yes, there should be a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can then discuss the scale and all those other things. Can we please consider seriously moving the learning centre to somewhere more appropriate, where it can do real justice to the purpose it is meant to have? With that, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Licensed Oil and Gas Fields: Emissions
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to assess the ‘scope 3 emissions’ of licensed oil and gas fields, and what impact they have on their emission reduction targets.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have consulted on supplementary environmental guidance relating to emissions from burning extracted oil and gas. We are working towards publication of finalised guidance as soon as possible. Emissions produced by burning oil and gas are accounted for in our domestic targets for the sectors which use these fuels. Emissions are not accounted for in carbon budgets if this fuel is burned outside the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be with me in expressing concern about the collision in the North Sea and in sending hope to the rescue services, the sailors and, of course, all marine life.
I thank the Minister for his Answer. That was exactly what I was concerned about. Once the gas and oil are extracted, the total emissions should then be accounted for, on the assumption that it will all be burned, whether or not it is exported or moved somewhere else.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Baroness in expressing my sympathy to all concerned in the tragic events that have taken place in the North Sea. I also agree with her that we should pay tribute to the emergency services—and, of course, we are very concerned about the environmental impact.
I ought to explain to the House that scope 1 emissions are direct company emissions that occur from sources owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 are indirect emissions resulting from generation of purchased energy, typically electricity, or purchased heat. Scope 3 are all indirect emissions not included in scope 2 that occur in the value chain of the reporting company and include downstream and upstream emissions—if noble Lords wished to know what those scopes were.
The point here is that we would be double-counting the emissions—or that is the risk—if we went down the route that the noble Baroness suggests. We had this consultation in the light of the Finch judgment, because we needed to revise the environmental impact assessment to take account of scope 3 emissions. We are carefully considering the consultation at the moment, and it would be premature for me to say anything more at this stage.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. Did the consultation involve—I do not think that it did—the issue of ending venting and flaring, which is not essential, from oil and gas fields in the North Sea? We know how damaging that is, and the Minister will recollect that during debates on the Energy Bill noble Lords across the House took a view that it was a dangerous practice that needed ending. What are the Government doing about ending it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is right that venting and flaring are not covered in the EIA consultation, which is about scope 3, and I think they would come into scope 1. We are, of course, concerned about this and are considering the matter. My understanding is that the upstream oil and gas sector overall makes up to 3% of total net territorial greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we are committed to meeting carbon budgets 4, 5 and 6, and we have just received advice from the Climate Change Committee in relation to carbon budget 7—all those things come into the mix as well—but I certainly take seriously the point that the noble Baroness raises.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, given the Supreme Court decision and the new rules on oil and gas production being consulted on, what other measures and assessments of extra resources are the Government considering or undertaking to ensure that continued progress is made towards a just transition in the North Sea?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is right. We issued a consultation paper last week in relation to the North Sea and the transition that takes place. There is a decline that has carried on for many years in North Sea production. On the other hand, the workers in the North Sea are very skilled, and there is no question that, as the number of workers in the oil and gas fields reduces, so there is a big demand to increase the workforce in offshore oil and gas. The consultation, our policy of a just transition and the jobs hubs that we have established are very much geared towards ensuring that we make use of very skilled people and find new employment for them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when the carbon capture and storage schemes were given the go-ahead recently, the one in Scotland was not among those that were given the go-ahead. When does the Minister expect further consideration of this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are of course in discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury over the next spending review and it would be premature for me to comment on any of the detail. Clearly, carbon capture, usage and storage have a very important role to play in the future, and I have noted my noble friend’s elegant bid for investment in Scotland in that regard.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify whether Jackdaw and Rosebank will be shut down under their policy of refusing to grant any new oil and gas licences. That is despite both licences being granted in 2022 and 2023 in recognition of their contribution to net zero and to our national energy security. Will the Minister please clarify that this is not another example of government policy being dictated by lawyers rather than by politicians? How does he expect the Chancellor to fulfil her growth agenda with the most expensive energy prices in the OECD?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the best way to deal with energy prices is to move from being utterly reliant on international gas prices subject to the volatility that has arisen from the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. That is why we must move towards clean power as soon as we possibly can, to give ourselves energy security.
I cannot answer that question in relation to Rosebank and Jackdaw. The original consent decisions were subject to judicial review, which was paused pending the outcome of the Finch judgment. In the light of the Finch judgment, as I have said, we are consulting on new environmental impact assessments. When we have produced those, it will then be up to developers to make applications for consents according to the new guidelines we have produced. I cannot forecast the outcome of that process.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, who in government is responsible for collecting the data on spillages from the oil and gas industry operations in the UK? Scope 3 emissions take account primarily of greenhouse gas emissions, but they also take account of pollution. How do the Government deal with pollution, particularly in marine protected areas due to those spillages?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to the North Sea, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning has an important role to play in the work that is undertaken on oil and gas. Of course, we have wider environmental law. Defra has a role to play. The Department for Transport—obviously, in relation to the tragic incident that has taken place—also has a role to play. On the point the noble Baroness raised, there has to be a cross-government approach to protecting biodiversity and the health of our seas. My department certainly plays its part in that.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I will become the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation from next month. Have the Government assessed the amount of lost investment, lost jobs, lost tax revenue and lost balance of payments costs in the unwelcome approach that we take to new gas and oil in the UK? We are simply substituting supply with that of our foreign competitors, notably Norway, Qatar and the US. Into the future, that could be domestic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as an avid reader of the Daily Telegraph, I was of course well aware of the noble Lord’s appointment. I heartily congratulate him on it and welcome him to our debates on energy. However, he is wrong. The best way to proceed is the way we are doing, by ensuring that we grow home-produced, clean-power energy. This is the best way to grow the economy. As for investment in the North Sea, the very fact that we are producing a consultation on environmental impact assessment and last week produced our consultation in relation to our policy of issuing no more licences gives clarity to the industry in which investment can continue to take place.
East Coast Main Line
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation will take place with rail users on the latest version of the proposed East Coast Main Line timetable.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the east coast main line timetable change is putting into effect the fruits of a £4 billion investment into the route since 2019. The timetable was consulted on in 2021, and feedback from that was incorporated. After a lengthy period, and following an industry task force review, the Secretary of State and I have agreed to the delivery of the timetable in December 2025.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, what in the consultation process was done about the fact that the most savage cut anywhere on the network applies to people from the Scottish Borders and Northumberland? They use Berwick-upon-Tweed station, where LNER’s hourly service will be reduced to a two-hourly service. Passengers will also probably find that, if they try to use any of the other operators, LNER tickets will not be accepted by them.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Constructing a railway timetable on one of the busiest routes in Britain is very difficult indeed. The benefits of the east coast main line modernisation are significantly faster journeys between London and Scotland, and an extra hourly London to Newcastle service. There are other improvements all the way up and down the line from King’s Cross to Edinburgh. In total—including CrossCountry and TransPennine services—the number of trains calling at Berwick and Alnmouth stations are the highest they have ever been. The noble Lord is right that there is some reduction in through trains from Berwick, but it is offset by an increase in CrossCountry, which has already taken place, and a further increase will take place on TransPennine in December 2025.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister give the House a commitment that the new timetable will remain as it is now, that the same number of direct trains from Northallerton and Darlington as at present will be maintained and that it will not follow the 2021 timetable? There are a number of businesses that rely on taking the trains from Northallerton and Darlington and having a direct service.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I understand—and I am sure that people who run the railway also understand —that there are some trade-offs to be made in the execution of the east coast main line upgrade. I know that there have been some improvements in the proposition of services in Northallerton as a result of local representations. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness to explain what they are and what the pattern of service will be from December 2025.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as a regular user of the east coast main line—and acknowledging the fact that it is already in national hands—and despite the comments of other noble Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate David Horne, the chief executive of LNER, on providing, in general, a very good service on that line. Can the Minister confirm that, in the Great British Railways development, no extra impediments, regulations or obstacles will be placed in the way of a business such as LNER in developing that business on the east coast?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s favourable views about the management of LNER and I agree entirely with him that the direction of that company under public ownership has been very good.
The instigation of Great British Railways, following the successful passage through this House and the other place, is definitely not intended to impede those people managing the railway on a route-operating and train-operating company basis. I say to the noble Lord that the whole point of Great British Railways is to give those people some real power in delivering better services for passengers than the fragmented railway does now. After all, it took four years to institute this timetable because it was so difficult to get agreement between all the parties, and this shows, more than ever before, that a guiding mind for the railway is absolutely what is needed to institute improvements for both passengers and freight.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, in the spirit of railway consultation, I met with the noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Bradley, and we are inviting the managing director of Avanti trains, Andy Mellors, for lunch. So my question is, would the Minister like to join us?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Colloquially, “you’re on your own with that one”. I meet the managing director of Avanti trains more often than I should have to, and the fact remains that Avanti’s performance, in stark contrast to that of LNER, still needs improvement. Actually, the service on the west coast ought to emulate the service on the east coast.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a regular passenger, along with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on the 9.30 from Edinburgh on the publicly owned LNER, I can say that it is a regularly efficient service. Unfortunately, yesterday, I had to travel on the west coast, on Avanti, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, who will confirm that the 9.36 train was cancelled without any explanation. So when are we going to bring Avanti into public ownership so we can have a decent service on the west coast as well?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid that I do not have the time or facilities to give each Member of this House the train information that they need on their daily journeys, although I will do my best if they ask me. Of course, there is a serious point to this. The House will have heard before that, actually, Avanti has not breached the contract that it was awarded when the original contract was extended. That is why I meet Mr Mellors and his management team on a regular basis, because I am exhorting them to perform the contract that the Government contracted them to do. The noble Lord is right that sometimes the service is not very good.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as well as the detail of the timetable, its accuracy is at least as important?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly would agree. It is a real skill on today’s railway to fit so many trains in, with so many different station calls. There is a serious point to the original question that the noble Lord asked, which is that there are some compromises to be made. The strange position that I find myself in after four years of saying, “Where is this timetable?” and “How are we going to put it in?” is that it had to come to the Minister for agreement to do it. I think there are probably only two other countries in the world where Ministers decide the times of trains: North Korea and Russia.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, open-access operators on the east coast main line have delivered significant benefits to passengers through increased competition, lower fares and additional journey options. So why have His Majesty’s Government rejected eight out of the last nine applications for new open-access services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two points to make to the noble Earl. First, the improvements in journey time between London and Scotland—particularly between King’s Cross and Edinburgh—apply equally to LNER and to LUMO, which is the open-access operator. Of course, the Government have not rejected eight out of nine applications. They have analysed the effect of those applications both on the reliability of the railway and on the revenue of the railway, and hence the effect on taxpayers’ subsidy. Their recommendation to the ORR, which currently decides open-access applications, is that those should be refused; but it is the ORR’s independent decision and we await its decision on all those nine applications and others.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, since the train drivers were given a very substantial pay increase, what has happened to train drivers’ productivity and train punctuality?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The increase in pay given to both train drivers and other railway staff last summer was not very different from the offer made by the previous Government, which was not sufficient to settle the dispute. The additional 2% that was paid last July stopped the dispute, which had cost the nation nearly £1 billion-worth of lost revenue on the railways. The result is that passenger numbers are steadily growing. The productivity of train drivers is, of course, a function of the timetable. The more services you run, the more likely it is that they will be more productive. That is a matter for their current employers, whether they are publicly owned or not.
It is interesting that, even if it had been decided by the Government last summer that they wanted to see productivity improvements for train drivers, in fact there were no extant proposals to allow that to happen, because many of the employers had withheld them pending the resolution of a dispute not about what the benefits of their productivity were but about who made the money out of the productivity, whether it was them or the Government.
Council of Nations and Regions
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the intended functions and constitutional role of the Council of Nations and Regions.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
My Lords, the council is designed to facilitate genuine partnership working between the UK Government, the devolved Governments, the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities. It brings together Governments and authorities with devolved responsibilities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges the country faces. The functions of the council are set out in its published terms of reference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the devolution White Paper said that the Council of the Nations and Regions
“will provide unparalleled opportunities for Mayors … to engage government at the highest levels on a systematic basis”.
There were 11 mayors at its first meeting six months ago, alongside the First Ministers from the devolved Administrations. How many mayors will attend when all the English combined authorities are set up? How often is it intended to meet, given that it was suggested it should meet for a second occasion in the early months of this year? How does it relate to other intergovernmental forums, such as the British-Irish Council? How does it relate to Gordon Brown’s 2022 proposal for a council of the nations and regions that would replace the House of Lords?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
My Lords, settle in. I will attempt to deal with some of those matters; no doubt they can be raised by other Members. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a completely new way of addressing intergovernmental relations. It is a unique forum for the mayors and the First Ministers to meet the senior leadership in the UK Government. Plainly, the number of mayors is a moving feast. The Government are encouraging as many English authorities to achieve mayoral status as possible, but this is a work in progress, although it is happening at pace. As the council develops, the Government will keep its structures and numbers under review—in consultation, of course, with the devolved Governments.
On the British-Irish Council, I think that feeds into a bigger question about intergovernmental structures generally. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a unique forum, and it is different from any others. Each forum serves a specific purpose, as does the British-Irish Council. Many of them come from historic agreements and situations. The Council of the Nations and Regions is in no way intended to replace any existing structures, but simply to supplement them.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Baroness to her place. I of course welcome all and any bodies that bring the different parts of the United Kingdom together for a purpose, but how do we avoid duplication and instead have complementarity in the different bodies, whether that is the east-west council or the Council of the Nations and Regions?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. There is, of course, no purpose in simply duplicating structures. That is why I sought in my last answer to emphasise the unique nature of this particular body. The Prime Minister has been clear that it will have genuine purpose and that it is not simply to be a talking shop. Other structures, however, address different problems and sensitivities. This particular structure will, for example, sit alongside the top-tier meetings that will continue to take place between the First Ministers and the Prime Minister, which will happen at the same time as these meetings. That goes towards efficiency of the use of structures rather than duplication, because the relevant people will be travelling in any event.
To the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about when the next meeting will take place, it will take place in the spring. The Council of the Nations and Regions will meet twice a year alongside the other structures that I mentioned.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I too welcome my noble and learned friend to her place. The Government recently announced a “third era” for the Scotland Office. The first was to establish devolution. The second, sadly, was mired in conflict and division. Does she agree that the third era should be about co-operation and delivery, and that this should be the focus for all who want to see Scotland prosper and succeed?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said last Friday:
“The vast majority of Scots want their two governments to work together to increase living standards and improve public services”.
From being based in Scotland, as this House is aware that I am, I can see this at first hand. I am told at official level, at the political level and from what I read in the newspapers that there is a consensus that inter- governmental relations have been vastly improved since the election of this Labour Government.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions brings another apparatus into the rather crowded field of devolved government. Can the Minister outline the process for resolving disagreements between devolved Administrations, the council and the UK Government, if, indeed, one exists?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It goes to the heart of any intergovernmental structure: the structures only work if the participants can find agreement and work co-operatively. The first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions was nothing but a success. There was agreement on how it should meet, a communiqué was produced following the meeting and it will meet again six months after its first meeting. It is also clear from the wider landscape of the relationships between the two Governments that it is adding to the picture of good working relationships.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I cannot speak for Scotland like the Minister can, but in Wales there certainly is a lack of clarity regarding the objectives of this body among not only some politicians but the media. After a 12-month first run of this body, will the Government publish a White Paper outlining what it has achieved and what it hopes to achieve, and invite discussion in the Senedd in Cardiff and in other devolved Parliaments to ensure that there is a full understanding and co-ordination of the aspiration for this body?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The purpose of the council is to deal with cross-cutting issues and strategic questions. For example, growth was on the agenda at the first meeting and some substantial actions came out of that—tangible outcomes that can be pointed to. The next issue, which will be tackled in the spring, will be of a similar nature. It is not in the nature of such discussions that a White Paper would assist the overall landscape. It is about relationships, tackling the big issues and delivering for the people.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the inter- governmental relations review, which reported in January 2022, so just over three years ago, introduced a structure of quarterly and annual reports on the state of inter- governmental relations. As the council is additional to the existing structures, and as those reports initially came from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—and have now transferred back to the Cabinet Office—can the Minister update us on when the next report will come out and whether the reporting system is still in place?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his question. I do not have that information to hand, but I will be very happy to write with it in due course.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions has real potential to improve economic activity in regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber, and throughout other regions in the UK. However, as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, I know how important it is to have a strong Civil Service presence in the regions to deliver on the functions of the council. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister assure me that getting that strong regional presence for the Civil Service will be a priority for the Government? I hope that was what the Secretary of State, Pat McFadden, was hinting at in his weekend interviews.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
Yes, I agree whole- heartedly with my noble friend that having the Civil Service out of London and in the regions is vital. I work from a UK government building in Edinburgh that has a large contingent from HMRC, as well as colleagues from the Cabinet Office, the Scotland Office and my own office. It is very easy to see the benefits of having departments in the regions. As I am sure noble Lords know, the Foreign Office also has a large presence outside Glasgow. It is vital to joined-up government that we have a Civil Service that serves the regions in England, as well as the nations in Scotland, and this Government are committed to that.
Autism and Learning Disabilities: Hospital Detention
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to recent reports of an autistic woman with learning disabilities being detained in a mental health hospital for 45 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Question refers to a very sad and concerning story. This Government want more people with a learning disability and autistic people to be supported in the community, not detained in mental health hospitals. That is why we are proposing reforms to the Mental Health Act, which this House is currently scrutinising. Through this, we want to help ensure that people get the support they need in the community, improving care and keeping people out of hospitals.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister, and I am sure the whole House was appalled by this shocking case, which came to light only due to a BBC investigation. Does the Minister agree that to prevent such a terrible situation arising again, we cannot just wait for the Mental Health Bill to get on the statute book with its current five- to 10-year implementation period? What immediate plans do the Government have to set up a system to review long-term detentions? Does the Minister agree with me that a mental health commissioner, currently under debate in the Bill, could take on this role?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tempting me to agree with her comments about a mental health commissioner. We have debated that, and the noble Baroness is aware that we do not feel that this is the right way forward. However, I am sure we will return to that on Report.
With regard to not waiting for the Mental Health Bill to become an Act, of course I agree. The number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are in mental health hospitals is unacceptable, and there are still too many detained who could be supported in their communities. We have taken immediate action in allocating funding to local areas: £124 million for learning disability and autism services. We are making sure that the workforce has the right skills and knowledge through work such as the HOPE(S) model. We are providing for the CQC to deliver independent care (education) and treatment reviews. NHS planning guidance provides a continued focus on improving mental health and learning disability care, with an objective to deliver a minimum—I emphasise minimum— 10% reduction in the use of in-patient care.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, for 25 years, this woman’s detention was in long-term segregation. My review of this practice, which was commissioned by the previous Government, recommended that people in LTS must have an independent review, should have national support to reduce confinement, and be allocated an independent project manager to co-ordinate their timely discharge. But despite the unequivocal success of the ICETR programme, the HOPE(S) intervention and senior intervenors’ support, funding has been cut at the end of this year. Will the Government commit to funding these vital initiatives to end this rights-depriving restrictive practice?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution and expertise in this area, which I know we all look to in your Lordships’ House, as well as outside it. The points she makes are quite right and important. On this particular case, which is very sad and concerning, I understand that the person is now living in the community with 24/7 care and has been since 2022. I saw at Rampton how people were being supported out into the community with the right support. On the example the noble Baroness gave, we are very keen to improve the uptake of advocacy services, and she will know that all these matters are being addressed in our discussions on the Mental Health Bill.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my particular interest in this subject as the younger sister of a woman with severe learning difficulties who was detained in a hospital for many years. Is my noble friend the Minister confident that this sort of tragic lengthy detention of a non-verbal woman with both autism and learning disabilities will be prevented in future by the register proposed in the Mental Health Bill to be established and maintained by integrated care boards?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, because we are, as my noble friend knows, updating an Act that is over 40 years old, to keep pace with demands and changes, and to meet our expectations of providing care through a compassionate and appropriate service. There were particular circumstances in this case, which I do not seek to excuse, but it is not appropriate for me to go into them. It is important to look at specific cases.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, there are over 2,000 people with autism and learning disabilities locked up in these facilities at huge cost. Putting them into the community does not necessarily work because the infrastructure is not there. Will the Minister commit to funding the necessary care and housing for this cohort?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the fact that at the end of January 2025 there were some 2,065 people with a learning disability, autism, or both, in mental health in-patient settings. The population I referred to is not a static one; there are new admissions every month. We know, for example, that in January 2024, some 10,000 discharges to the community had been undertaken since 2015. So it is not necessarily the same group of people. She will know that funding decisions are made at the appropriate point. Again, this is a matter of great importance to the Mental Health Bill, and we will continue to take that through the House to get it into the best place possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, during the 45 years that this poor autistic lady with learning disabilities was detained and the 25 years she was in segregation, we have had Governments of all political colours, so this is clearly not a political issue. Indeed, I remember the Minister challenging me on such detentions when I was in her place. Given that, are the Government any closer to understanding the barriers that prevent such patients from being released into the community? Rather than assuming that the state always has a solution, have the Government and the NHS had conversations with local community civil society organisations so that they can support these patients once they are released into the community?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This matter is one of concern on all sides and yes, indeed, we continually have those discussions, because this is not just something for the NHS and social care—the third sector is absolutely key. I have already outlined the measures we are currently taking and the way in which we continue to monitor.
On the question about obstacles, it is about having the right community provision in place and also about having the right pathway and treating people as individuals. Increasingly, that is the case, and a revised Mental Health Act will be a tremendous support in this area.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that the use of the Mental Health Act in these circumstances should be a last resort and a minimal experience. What happened to this lady is no credit to our society as a whole. Can the Minister say what steps have been taken since this lady’s experience came to light to ensure that other people are not subject to the same experience? We really need to learn from this experience.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Regrettably, that person’s experience is not a lone example. That is why, for example, the Mental Health Bill will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people, so that they can be detained under Section 2(3) only if they have a co-occurring mental disorder that requires hospital treatment. That is key because, in the times that we are talking about, people were detained just because of autism or a learning disability. That is not acceptable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister and advise her that your Lordships’ House has a specialist committee that is dealing with the review of the Autism Act 2009. I encourage my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, both in health and social care and in education, to undertake a review of that Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose, for the needs of autistic people.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very grateful to the committee for its work and I am certainly looking forward to its report. The Government will respond to that report within two months. It is indeed vital work that is being undertaken.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House will agree that we are very lucky to have such excellent Deputy Speakers who support the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker in their work, spending many hours on the Woolsack, at the Table and in Grand Committee. That is why, before we go to the primary business, I have a few remarks to make.
I remind the House of our responsibilities to support the Deputy Speakers as well as the clerks, who are also doing an excellent job, and refrain from behaviour that is below the standards that we expect from each other in this House. When the noble Lord on the Woolsack stands up, we should sit down; that needs to be observed at all times. When the House is sitting and debates are ongoing, all Members should ensure that long conversations on the Benches with colleagues instead take place outside the Chamber. There have been several instances of increased chatter during Members’ contributions. This is not only not in line with the overall good standards of courtesy in the House, but it also makes the management of the Chamber for the clerks, the noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Whips all the more difficult.
Movement around the Chamber should be limited when a Member is speaking. There are increased reports of noble Lords walking in front of Members of the House while they are making contributions. This can be distracting, makes it harder for noble Lords to be heard and is rude. No Member of this House should walk between the Woolsack and the Table at any point when the House is sitting, especially when the noble Lord on the Woolsack is speaking. It is disrespectful, and we should expect better of each other. Please do not do this. It is important that we do not restrict the ability of the noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Clerk at the Table to see each other as well as the wider House.
We have also seen increased movement around the Chamber when a Division is called, with Members jumping up straightaway. I remind colleagues that, once a Question has been put, the voting system needs to be activated before a vote can take place. So noble Lords should please wait until the noble Lord on the Woolsack has advised that voting is open, and has sat down, before proceeding to the voting Lobbies. After three minutes, when the Question is put again, both sides need to say loudly, “Content”, or “Not content”, for the vote to continue. I remind your Lordships that a microphone is on during the Divisions, and it does pick up our conversations.
While I am on my feet, I also remind noble Lords that, when you arrive in the voting Lobby, please place your pass firmly on the card reader and make sure your vote is recorded; you will get a ping and a visual confirmation that you have voted. The act of walking through the Lobby does not cast a vote; it must be recorded on the reader. Votes can be close, so try not to be the noble Lord who lost a vote for their side because they just walked through the Lobby but never actually voted. Finally, please leave the Lobby quickly after voting; do not stand behind the Tellers talking and making it harder for other noble Lords to walk through.
If we observe these simple courtesies, rules and procedures, it will improve the working of the House for everyone—Members, clerks, doorkeepers and all staff—and it will look better for the public who are watching our proceedings.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-R-I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2025)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill has its genesis in the evening of 22 May 2017 in the Manchester Arena, where more than 1,000 people were injured and 22 were killed in a terror attack—the sole responsibility of the terrorist involved. This Bill is a tribute to those victims and to the victims of other terrorist attacks. They will never ever be forgotten.
Noble Lords will be aware, of course, of the campaigning work of Figen Murray and her team. We would not be here today without her and her team, and I give them my thanks. This Bill will now be known as Martyn’s law in memory of Figen’s son, Martyn, who died in that Manchester terror attack. I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services, law enforcement and others, who work day in and day out to protect this country from the ongoing threat of terrorism, and to the first responders who are on the front line, if and when the worst happens.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill. They have been astute and considered, and I am deeply grateful for their scrutiny. I hope that we have had a collaborative, constructive approach to this Bill, and it is important that such legislation on terrorism has cross-party support across this House and the House of Commons. I am proud to be one of the Ministers who have brought this to fruition on behalf of the Government.
I thank Minister Dan Jarvis, who led the Bill in the House of Commons, and my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lord Moraes, the Whips on the Government Benches who have worked to tight timetables. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower—and his colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Cameron of Lochiel—as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their leadership on the Benches opposite.
I thank the policy, legal and Bill teams in the Home Office, which have worked under the previous Government and this Government; their tireless work has made this Bill possible. I also thank the team at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting the Bill. I extend my deep and perpetual gratitude to the parliamentary staff, doorkeepers, clerks and others for their professionalism and their continued support for the Bill and your Lordships’ House.
This Bill will help save lives. As it leaves this House now, I look forward to its final passage in the House of Commons soon and its continuance to Royal Assent in due course. I commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward for Third Reading. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their diligent scrutiny and contributions throughout the Bill’s progression.
I also extend my sincere thanks, once again, to Figen Murray—together with her team, as the Minister mentioned—whose tireless campaigning has been instrumental in ensuring that we make progress on stronger protection for premises. Without her dedication, the Bill would not have progressed as it has.
I am pleased that we had the opportunity for a thorough debate around the important issues contained in the Bill both in Committee and on Report. On Report, several crucial issues were raised; foremost among them was the concern that the Bill should not place an undue burden on smaller businesses and voluntary organisations. Indeed, I still have some concerns about that, and its eventual effect remains to be seen. We heard compelling arguments from my noble friends Lord Udny- Lister, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord De Mauley about the challenges faced by small enterprises, charities, events and community groups, particularly in implementing the necessary security measures without excessive financial or administrative strain.
Similarly, concerns were voiced regarding the potential impact on volunteers and organisations in the cultural, sporting and heritage sectors. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the potential issues for hundreds of church communities and how they will be affected. These discussions underscored the necessity of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are not only effective but proportionate and pragmatic in their application. While I am disappointed that the Government felt unable to support amendments that sought to protect smaller businesses and volunteers, we acknowledge the importance of moving forward with a Bill that still represents a significant step forward in our collective security.
We also welcome the Government’s clarification on the Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill, an issue of legitimate concern that was rightly debated in detail. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for bringing amendments to refine these provisions. I commend the Minister on engaging seriously with these concerns and ensuring that the necessary clarifications were made. This is precisely the kind of constructive scrutiny in your Lordships’ House that strengthens legislation, and I am grateful to all who participated in this process.
I thank my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst for their support on the Bill. I must also mention our support team on this side, Henry Mitson and Max McGiffen.
As we move towards the implementation of the Bill, it is vital that those affected by its provisions—businesses, charities, local authorities and venue operators —receive clear guidance and support. The effectiveness of this legislation will be determined not by the words on the page alone but by how well it is put into practice. Adequate resources, training and advice must be provided to ensure that compliance is achievable and that security measures are implemented effectively without unnecessary complexity or confusion. To that end, a watchful eye will be kept on the performance of the Security Industry Authority.
Furthermore, we must continue to evaluate the impact of these measures once they are in force. Security threats evolve, and our responses must remain adaptable. I hope that the Government will remain open to reviewing and, if necessary, refining the legislation in the future to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those it seeks to protect.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant and necessary step in our ongoing efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. While no legislation can eliminate it entirely, we have a duty to take every reasonable measure to mitigate threats and to ensure that venues and public spaces are as prepared as possible. The Bill is a tribute to those who have tragically lost their lives to terrorism, and a testament to our resolve that we will do all we can to prevent future tragedies.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as has been said, thanks must primarily go to Figen Murray, Stuart Murray and their team. Not for a minute have they allowed us to forget the significance of the Bill, which Figen instigated. Their staying power is remarkable, but not really a surprise in view of their history.
In the absence of my noble friend Lady Suttie from these Benches, we thank the Minister and his team for their helpfulness, openness and, as he said, collaboration, which we have really appreciated. I thank my noble friend Lady Suttie for being so easy to work with and so clear about what we wanted to achieve. As ever, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office. I have often said to her that she works so hard on legislation that she should do the last bit and be here to speak to it.
The Bill will not stop terrorism but has a very important part to play in the response to it, and we are pleased that challenges to the Bill have been resisted. We look forward to following its implementation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the discussions we have had both in this Chamber and beyond have been deeply thoughtful and constructive, motivated by a shared desire to protect the public while ensuring that the measures we introduce are both proportionate and workable.
However, I remain very concerned about the potential impact of this legislation on volunteers and volunteer-run organisations and on their enthusiasm to take up the mantle to run those vital village halls and community centres that we heard so much about during the passage of the Bill.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his assurance that the Government will keep the matter under review. I think it is incumbent on us all to ensure that the burdens imposed by this legislation on very small businesses and community enterprises are closely monitored and that, in the event that it has the adverse impact I fear, the matter can come back before the House for examination.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from noble Lords. The Bill now goes to the House of Commons with government amendments and amendments the Government have supported, and I look forward to a speedy passage to Royal Assent.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Mar 2025)
17:03 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 267 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
18:01 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 7 disagreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
19:36 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football.(1A) The Secretary of State must, in taking any action under this Act, have regard to this purpose.(1B) The Independent Football Regulator must, in exercising its functions under this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the purpose clause to include financial sustainability and success, and to give legal effect by requiring the Secretary of State and the IFR to have regard to that purpose.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I begin this first day on Report by thanking the Minister for her considerable engagement on the Bill. It is nearly two months since Committee finished, and I am sure that scarcely a day has passed in the weeks that have intervened without her talking about this Bill with the Bill team or with colleagues across your Lordships’ House. I am particularly grateful, on my behalf and that of my noble friend Lord Markham, for the many meetings she has had with us on the Opposition Front Bench to talk about it. I know she has spent a great deal of time talking to noble Lords from across the House.
I also welcome the government amendments that she has tabled, some of which develop thoughts raised on all sides of the House in Committee, demonstrating that she and her team have listened to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee and that she has heard those from all sides of the House.
I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who have seen a lot of the issues they raised—through, I think, more than 100 amendments in Committee—taken forward. I hope we might yet still be able to persuade the Minister of one or two others, but we thank her for the amendments she has brought forward.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group, which includes Amendment 15, to which I have added my name. As I said in Committee, the Government have been very vocal in their demands for existing regulators to institute cultural change within their organisations to help deliver economic growth, rather than excessively focusing on risk.
In January, the Chancellor said:
“Every regulator, no matter what sector, has a part to play by tearing down the regulatory barriers that hold back growth. I want to see this mission woven into the very fabric of our regulators through a cultural shift from excessively focusing on risk to helping drive growth”.
That is a call I strongly support. Regulators have a significant influence over the economy, and it is only right that they take into account the need for growth in their actions and decisions. It was a significant oversight not to include such a commitment to ensuring the continued growth of football, one of our most successful sectors, from the outset in the remit of the new regulator.
I would therefore like to thank the Minister for listening to the points raised on this issue and coming forward with the government amendment that obliges the regulator to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football. It is an extremely welcome change to the Bill and an important addition to the IFR’s duties. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as declared in the register. I begin by welcoming the positive engagement that many of us have had with Ministers and the department since Committee. It is clear that the Government have been listening and are responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and the Bill team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialogue we have established will result in a more effective Bill, which of course is our job here in this place.
I rise to strongly welcome Amendment 14, the Government’s proposed inclusion of a new duty on the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balanced and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated throughout this process, and which I know the Government genuinely intend. This is a very positive development. The new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. Its inclusion is an acknowledgement that, to ensure that English football remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the game’s ability to continue to grow and succeed.
This is an important way to frame the approach of the regulator from the very beginning, but I hope it will also have specific practical benefits. For example, the new duty should help to prevent the IFR adopting an overly risk-averse or restrictive approach to financial regulation which could otherwise limit football clubs’ ability to invest and innovate. It should also serve as a significant check on any regulatory decision around the flow of Premier League funding, ensuring that determinations on financial distributions remain balanced and proportionate, and avoiding unintended harm to the commercial strength and international competitiveness of the league.
In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator will approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future, not just fix the issues of the past. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is more to do, and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout Report, but I am happy to offer my support for this amendment. I believe a growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has said. I too have greatly benefited from the constructive engagement of the Minister and the Bill team, and I am very grateful to them for the time they have taken and the listening they have done to the concerns that were raised during Committee. I should declare my interests for today. One of my areas of practice is as a barrister of sports law; I represent Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings —and I am a supporter of Arsenal Football Club.
I have one lawyer’s point on Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. His proposed new Clause 1(1A) and (1B) would put on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State and the IFR, in exercising their functions, must have regard to the purpose of what will be the Act. That is entirely unnecessary because one of the basic principles of modern administrative law is that powers conferred under an Act may lawfully be used only to advance the objectives of the Act. That has been the law since the statement of Lord Reid in the Padfield case of 1968. It would be unfortunate if this Bill included something that is otherwise implicit in all legislation; it would cast doubt on Bills that do not include such provisions.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise merely to add my support to what has been said, and to commend the Government for having been on a journey to recognise some of the points made in Committee, which, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said from the Front Bench, was some two months ago. I hope I will not be thought ungracious if I simply comment that it was mildly irritating for us to be criticised for submitting this Bill to the scrutiny that we did in Committee, and to be accused of filibustering, when the Government were all the time listening to what we were saying and moving in the direction we were advocating.
I would merely comment that a number of us across the House advocated in Committee that an obligation to pursue growth in English football should be a key part of the purposes of the Bill. That was rejected by the Government at the time—almost contemporaneously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer using her bully pulpit to advocate that all the other regulators should be doing precisely what we were proposing.
We welcome the conversion and the journey, and we hope that more concessions will be made towards making the activities of this regulator less damaging than seemed to be the danger in the way the Bill was originally constructed. There will be more for us to discuss on that subject later.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will speak briefly about the growth amendment in my name. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of growth and, generally, I welcome the input from the Minister and the collaborative manner.
I want to make one point quite clear for the record. There are two main reasons for the success of the Premier League. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, pointed out, it has 44% of the best players in the world. Secondly, every game is competitive. Why is that important in this context? Two elements that the regulator can be involved in could impact that. One is the backstop: if there is too much redistribution between the Premier League and the other leagues, the Premier League will no longer be able to attract the best players in the world, and that will impact the attractiveness of the sport. The other element is the parachute payments: if those are impacted to a degree that clubs no longer feel confident to invest in new players if they have just been promoted or are under threat of relegation—making those games less competitive—the Premier League will become less attractive.
That is why it is very important to put on the record that, instead of having one just dimension where the regulator considers the sustainability of clubs—that would always point it towards redistributing more money —it now has the twin objective of growth. That will mean that it needs to counter that with making sure that the Premier League and all of football is very successful—because it can attract the best players because it has the financial resources to do so—and that all clubs want to invest because they know that they have the safety net should they be relegated.
Again, I am very pleased to see that that extra dimension is now added in there. That will be an important point that the regulator will always have by its side as it considers the Bill.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, at the end of the day, the purpose of this first amendment is simply to increase financial sustainability and to require the Secretary of State to do a number of things. The Bill as it stands clearly and simply states the purpose, review and key priorities:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
I for one would be content not to put in finance and many other things, because that opens a big can of worms. The Bill then spells out clearly in Clause 2 how to achieve that particular purpose. This amendment would truncate a big piece of work that has been done.
So I still support the idea that the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote and sustain English football. That is a wonderful way of doing it. The amendment would reduce it to financial sustainability and the Secretary of State having powers to do this, that and the other. This particular Bill is really about the independent regulator; do not suddenly introduce the Secretary of State in the purposes. So I would not like to support or go with this amendment, because it is not as careful and clear as the purpose we have at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendments, and for his kind words and his engagement on this Bill. I extend those thanks to all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for their engagement, and for the time and input that I have benefited from over the last few weeks and months.
I will start with Amendment 2. I reassure the noble Lord that, although the Bill does not specify the requirement to consider both prospective and current fans, this is implicit within the existing requirement. Football would not serve the interests of fans if the game were unattractive or unwelcoming to new fans. The regulator is also inherently future minded, with the requirement to focus on sustainability and the long-term protection of the club and its heritage assets. Future fans are therefore already required to be in the regulator’s mind when it makes its decisions. This is also reflected in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and for the recognition that the Government also want to see the growth of English football in non-financial ways such as she set out. I take the points she made about the drafting and the need for precision in this Bill, so I thank her for her engagement on that point as well.
I congratulate my noble friends Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Brady, in particular, who raised the issue of growth in Committee. As I say, I am glad that the Government have brought it forward, as it is consistent with what they are doing vis-à-vis many other regulators—so I am glad that we have the government amendment here. I am glad, too, for the recognition that the regulator and all who care about English football will be focused on prospective fans as well as current ones. This is more than just a preservation order being slapped on football; it is something to encourage its sustainability and growth.
As my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, it is welcome to see the change from some of the responses that we had in Committee. I thank the Sports Minister for the apology that she gave to my noble friend Lady Brady, following an article that she wrote in the Daily Mail. I think that that was appreciated by my noble friend and the others who were mentioned in it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his lawyer’s point, which I take on board. I would have been very happy if the Minister had said that she would accept just proposed new subsection (1)—but I heard also what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said. I proffered Amendment 1 in the spirit of compromise, but in the spirit of compromise I am happy to withdraw it and move on to other amendments.
Lord Addington
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty set out in section (Social responsibility duty).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes in the definition of English football sustainability the social responsibility duty created by the amendment after Clause 51 in the name of Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendments to which I put my name are trying to point out the fact that we regard these football clubs as being social assets—things that should actually reach into their community. We were inspired by a series of meetings with various bits of the football community, because they did not seem to be taking it on board that wholeheartedly—so I proposed a series of amendments giving specific duties to what those clubs covered by this should do.
I give great thanks to the Minister, who clearly listened to at least the concept of this proposal, if not my particular idea, and has come up with the Government’s own Amendment 32. I am really here just to say that, if the Minister wanted to add to her amendment by accepting mine, I would be incredibly grateful—but her own amendment, bringing in corporate governance to the schedules of the Bill, is one that may give us a chance to grow and develop the idea of community interaction between clubs and the communities that they serve. That is very important. There has been far too much talk in this debate about financial aspects and great growth, et cetera. Nothing stays still for ever; Italian football has been very popular and may be again—who knows?
The fact of the matter is that these are things that we now regard as social assets, and clearly that is something that the Bill should embrace. Saying that they have an outstanding duty to their community is something that we should embrace. I would not feel bad if any of the other professional sports in this country took on some of this duty as well—I would welcome it with open arms.
I thank the Minister and look forward to her comments on my humble efforts, but this is very much the Minister’s championing of an idea, and I thank her and the Government for bringing forward her amendment, which I shall wholeheartedly support when it is moved.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 32, which would make the economic and social impact of a football club part of its corporate governance requirements. It has become something of a cliché to point out that football clubs are deeply woven into the fabric of their communities, but it is such an important part of why football is so important in the lives of millions in our countries.
If I may, I will very briefly share what this looks like in practice, through the example of my own club, West Ham United. I am proud that our foundation reaches over 50,000 people annually across east London, operating in some of the most deprived boroughs in our country. When West Ham moved to the London Stadium, we made a commitment that this would not just be about a bigger stadium but about deeper community roots.
The foundation now delivers over 30 different programmes, focusing on health, education, employment and social inclusion. During the pandemic, players and staff personally delivered meals to vulnerable residents. The club and fans made significant financial contributions to local food banks. None of this was seen as charity; it was about responsibility. It is what a football club is all about. Our award-winning Players’ Project has seen first team players become ambassadors for specific community initiatives, giving not just their names but their time and their genuine engagement. These connections matter profoundly to local residents.
What makes these initiatives particularly powerful is that they leverage what football does uniquely well: they bring people together across the divides of age, background and circumstances. When a young person struggling with education attends a programme at West Ham United, they engage in ways that traditional institutions often cannot reach them. I have seen the personal impact for myself countless times.
The economic impact is equally significant. West Ham supports thousands of jobs, directly and through a supply chain predominantly sourced within east London. My club has contributed £323 million in gross value added to the regional economy through supply chain, supporting employment and the visitor economy. Match day brings vital trade to local businesses, where targeted employment programmes have helped hundreds of local residents find sustainable work.
These amendments would help to ensure that such contributions are not peripheral or dependent on the good will of particular owners but are fundamental to how clubs operate and are governed. I commend the Minister, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for supporting these amendments. I know that this is a particular passion for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in relation to his Amendment 50, which is also part of this group. I believe he has had some productive conversations with the Premier League about how we can build on our experience and support football charities.
I believe the league will now be examining how we can work with expert organisations, such as the NCVO, to make good governance advice more accessible to small community organisations. This would be a good use of the Premier League’s reach and profile within communities, so I am pleased it is happening.
Football clubs receive extraordinary loyalty and emotional investment from their communities. These amendments formalise that this relationship is reciprocal and should be embedded in governance structures. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask as we develop this new regulatory framework, so I fully support these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, we have spent some seven days discussing the detail of the Bill, and I think this is probably the first time I can rise and say that I actually agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. It is true that football has the power to do an awful lot of good. Many clubs—not just West Ham —actually do an awful lot of good in their community. The Minister has tabled Amendment 32, and my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have added our names to it, because this is one of the issues that we have discussed with the Minister and have mentioned in this House.
I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work that Bolton Wanderers does in the community. Suffice it to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair who not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the overnight sleep-outs for charity and other such activities. It is a mark of the level of commitment that many of the people who run football clubs have towards their communities and it is something that we should appreciate.
There is sometimes an accusation of sportswashing when clubs make big gestures, but an awful lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. In this context, it is particularly important in terms of men’s mental health, because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way.
Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues, and for the amendment she has tabled, which I am very happy to support.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I commend Bolton Wanderers and West Ham on what they do in and for their local communities. There are many other clubs which do likewise—I know about Arsenal and Manchester City.
I too very much welcome government Amendment 32. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says what he says. I respectfully suggest that his amendments are overregulation, which we all wish to avoid in this Bill. Government Amendment 32 suffices.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in case everyone thought a bout of consensus had broken out, I beg to differ. I have some reservations about this group. I find myself at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which neither of us will be surprised by, but I also find myself at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, which is perhaps more surprising having been through Committee.
Let me raise some of my reservations. We have been consistently told that this legislation is necessary to protect football clubs precisely because they are such intrinsic parts of our community and interwoven into our society. It is those authentic, organic relationships with local areas and generations of fans I am worried this Bill could undermine. I am not convinced that the clubs need a regulator to add something that could become a performative and unnecessary corporate governance duty. That is one of my reservations.
I was also somewhat surprised to see the Government’s Amendment 32, making a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community part of its corporate governance. That was somehow quite insulting, as though clubs need officialdom to tell them to be socially responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, indicated, that is very much the ecosystem of connectedness that is in clubs’ DNA. There is a danger of overregulation here.
In a later group on regulatory principles, the Government’s Amendment 18—which I do welcome—states as a regulatory principle that the independent football regulator should have regard to whether any requirement or restriction is necessary before it imposes it and asks the IFR to consider
“whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 32 seems to fail that test. I am worried about putting in the Bill a regulation that could be interpreted as asking football to take on responsibilities far removed from football in a regulatory fashion that makes them behave somewhere between social engineering and social work. I would like some reassurance that this will not contradict or add a burden of regulation on clubs in what they already are doing. Why do we need to have it written down in the Bill?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I think there is a severe danger of there being a consensus around the sentiments, at any rate, reflected in this group of amendments. The point has been made by a number of your Lordships that this is what good clubs do. Successful clubs are deeply rooted in, and serve, their communities, act as a focal point for social action and social activity, and can do enormous good.
On Thursday evening, I shall go, in hope, to watch Tottenham play in the Europa League. The following morning, I shall attend the governors’ meeting of the London Academy of Excellence Tottenham, which is a brilliant sixth-form academy that serves disadvantaged young people with academic promise from across the community. Its principal business sponsor is Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Its premises are in the Lilywhite House, which is the office headquarters of the club. It is brilliantly successful. Tottenham, like most successful clubs, is deeply entrenched and embedded in the local community.
I therefore have some sympathy when the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asks about whether this is necessary. The clubs that take their social and community responsibilities seriously because that is what they need to do as part of their success and their obligations—it is part of the debt they owe to the communities they are part of—will not find it a regulatory burden, because they are, as the noble Baroness said, doing it already. While I am generally allergic to new regulatory powers when the case for them is not overwhelmingly proven, I am willing to make an exception in this case.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I would like to offer praise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having a go at a very necessary social responsibility question in his Amendment 3, so I thank him for doing it. His name is also on Amendment 32 in this group, which is a distillation of what I think he would like to say to already successful clubs that are engaged in social responsibility in their area. Amendment 32 would be the one I would go for if a vote were called, whereas the noble Lord’s Amendment 3 has woken us up to the possibility that if you are working in a community and living in a community, you have a responsibility to it—you should not just take the money out.
As a vicar in Tulse Hill near Brixton, when most of our houses were not in very good shape and I was living in a vicarage, I felt that my duty and responsibility to Tulse Hill estate and St Martin’s estate was to engage the local council fully, and it agreed to provide a lot of change as a result. I understand the question of responsibility, but I think Amendment 32 gets what the noble Lord wants in Amendment 3, so he should go for Amendment 32 and not for Amendment 3.
Lord Markham (Con)
From this side, I would like to join the recognition from all noble Lords about the social value that clubs bring. I need only to look at my six year-old, who is barely ever not wearing his Cole Palmer shirt, to know that it is much bigger than just an economic interest. Clubs fully understand that, and I think that point was made very well by all noble Lords—the particular examples from my noble friend Lady Brady were very well made.
Clubs realise that they are the leaders in their field, and I think we have all seen countless examples of them doing it again and again. In terms of getting the balance right, though, we shall talk later—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point as well—about wanting to make sure the regulator is light touch. I think the Government get that right in their Amendment 32—again, I think we all agree on the intentions—but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may go slightly to the other side of the fence. However, I think we have a united gathering, for want of a better word, around the Government’s amendment. From our side, we very much welcome that, and welcome the continued work of the clubs on the social front as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this issue on Report and giving us the opportunity to discuss it further. I also thank him for his very kind words and, not least, for his persuasive arguments over the past few weeks. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for their time on many occasions. I am also grateful to noble Lords from across the House, irrespective of whether they agree with the government position, although I feel that there was a general consensus.
I think that what we are all agreed on across your Lordships’ House, including the Government, is that clubs play a vital role in their local communities. It is a key part of what makes football our national game as well as our local anchor. However, as I previously stated in Committee, we believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would expand the scope of the regulator too far and are potentially overprescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed much more elegantly than I can.
The regulator should be focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures rather than regulating on issues that the industry can solve. There are many different ways a club can make a difference and serve its local community. We have heard some fabulous examples throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, including a number we have heard today, such as that of West Ham during the pandemic, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton mentioned the charity work of her team, Bolton Wanderers.
This is why we are confident that government Amendment 32 strikes the right balance. We want to encourage clubs to continue their great work in their local communities without restricting the manner or form in which they achieve it. For example, clubs could match their community outreach initiatives to the size and resources of their clubs and to the specific communities’ needs and issues, which may vary. This could include the bespoke training for charities and community groups envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Like him, we agree that the regulator can shine a light on this vital work carried out by clubs up and down the country and therefore encourage more outreach. That is why we have brought forward the government amendment, which would require clubs to report on the actions they are carrying out.
Government Amendment 32 would mean that the regulator includes clubs’ community contributions in its corporate governance code and adds criteria for what constitutes corporate governance for football clubs. I welcome support for the government amendment from my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who have co-sponsored the amendment. This is very much in the spirit of co-operation and discussion that we have had over the past few weeks. It will be explicit in the Bill that a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community is part of its corporate governance. That will ensure that clubs outline how they contribute to their local communities in their corporate governance statement.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, we do not think this is heavy-handed or overregulation; this is, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, said, what good clubs already do. If they were not contributing to their local community, they would, however, be expected to explain the reason for that in their statement. Their report would be published online to allow for public scrutiny so they can be held accountable for their actions or inaction. We believe this will encourage transparency and, as with the approach to corporate governance more widely, this will in turn encourage greater action in this space.
Above all, this approach will allow flexibility for each club to comply in accordance with their resources and size and in a way suited to their own community’s needs. Additionally, when the regulator publishes its corporate governance report on clubs, best practice can be shared with the industry. The approach will also ensure that we do not step on the toes of the likes of the FA, which already spearheads good social and community initiatives across football.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that we are taking appropriate action to ensure that this important issue is captured without giving without rise to scope creep. For these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I commend government Amendment 32.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, my Lords, there were hints of normal service being resumed at the end of that. It just goes to show that we have to look at what we are actually trying to achieve here. If good clubs do it anyway, why should they be hamstrung by doing it when bad ones do not? That is something I would say: a bit of basic fair play. Also, the idea of light-touch has been spoken about very much in this debate—it is one of the mantras—but I just received information from the EFL saying that it is worried about this, because what does “light-touch” mean? Does it mean doing virtually nothing? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but we will possibly drag that out during the course of the Bill. I have heard Lords debates in which “light-touch” was described as being asleep at the wheel and only paying attention when there is a disaster.
I would hope that the careful use of regulation, encouraging people to do the things they should, is something we do not shy away from. The good ones do it—bravo—but let us make the rest join in. I hope that we can take this principle forward in this Bill and other pieces of legislation. Just because somebody is good does not mean to say that everybody will be. I do not know how many pieces of legislation have that principle running through the middle of them like a stick of rock. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and look forward to supporting the government amendment when it is moved.
Lord Moynihan
“(3A) In exercising their powers and functions under this Act, the Secretary of State or the IFR may not act in a way which conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is consequential. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much-appreciated constant support for all Members of your Lordships’ House, not least me, regarding meetings, letters and her engagement on the numerous issues that are relevant to the Bill, which already this afternoon has been improved.
My amendment recognises that English football operates successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs the Champions League. This summer, FIFA hosts the first Club World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available. Chelsea and Manchester City will compete for the trophy in the States. They do so for one reason: FIFA and UEFA recognise the Football Association as the sole governing body for all rules and regulations governing football in England. That is why the FA has a veto over any rule change in the constitution of the Premier League. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association, meaning that the FA has control over the men’s and women’s Great Britain Olympic football teams. All England’s professional football teams are members of the FA. The English Football League, made up of the three fully professional divisions below the Premier League is self-governing, subject to the FA’s sanctions. In another place, David Newton, giving evidence to the committee, stated that
“the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football”.—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 14/5/24; col. 63.]
Like every other league in England, the FA Premier League comes under the jurisdiction of the FA and must submit its rules each year for approval and sanction. However, this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this Bill, which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA. Sadly, as drafted the Bill removes the FA from the face of football regulation in England. Its 13 mentions in the 124 pages are mostly definitional: the company number is there in one reference; the FA is referred to as the Football Association in a couple of others; it is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise, it is purely an organisation that is consulted without any authority, without any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, the one recognised governing body of football in this country, feels. The FA is given one power, on page 40, in Clause 49(2), which is its one power in the whole Bill:
“A regulated club must not change the name of a relevant team operated by the club unless the change has been approved by the Football Association”.
That is the one name-changing power in the Bill.
UEFA has never hesitated in making clear that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the Football Association as the sole governing body for football in England, in accordance with the UEFA and FIFA statutes. UEFA stated that legislation that
“compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”
would be non-compliant with these statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned last year that there should be
“no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding”
the national governing body
“from Uefa and teams from competition”.
UEFA’s statutes do not permit it to recognise the primacy of a state-licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand its core powers to a government-appointed regulator which conflicts with UEFA’s regulation. This was well covered in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said:
“I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. 761.]
She referred to the letter, which she said was a private letter from UEFA, and there was no intention for it to be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out during the debate, the letter
“is obviously relevant to the Bill … Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1236.]
We heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from DCMS. A request was made to the DCMS freedom of information team, and the reply to James Wild MP reads as follows: “We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act. We regret that we were unable to respond to your request because it exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request would be over the statutory limit, because this would take considerable resources, involving many staff across the department. UEFA is a key stakeholder across sport and is engaged with the department on a regular basis”.
It would take some imagination to work that into a script of “Yes Minister”. Consider if every country established its own regulator without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and, in essence, challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards.
This amendment, recognising that the FA is in no way part of the proposed legislation that your Lordships are considering, would protect English football and our clubs. In many ways, it is a growth amendment. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep, the amendment lies comfortably in the Bill. If I and my colleagues are right, its place in the Bill provides a protection against mission creep, which none of us wants to see. I therefore hope that the House will support us, and I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.
It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.
Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.
I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.
The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I chaired the meeting referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I too was very puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, decided to proceed with his amendment today. The FA was very clear that UEFA and FIFA were very happy with where we had got to with the legislation and that they were satisfied. It made clear too that DCMS was right not to want to publish the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made clear and obvious reference.
I agree with the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was somewhat surprised that he—the lawyer and expert in football litigation that he is—made some of them. As he said, only one group of people will benefit from this—those who do sports lawyering.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press his amendments—they are not necessary. If we were to be mistaken and accepted them into the Bill, it would slow down the operation of the independent football regulator, and I do not think anybody wants that. It could lead only to a reduction in the effectiveness and speed of the regulator’s operation. I hope that having heard what the FA said about it, as he did yesterday, and the assurance it gave to me and others in the room that it is happy and that UEFA and FIFA are happy, he will in good grace not press the amendments.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has articulated the case for his amendments with great clarity. Without revisiting all the arguments made in Committee, my fundamental concern is straightforward: we must avoid inadvertently ceding control of English football to external bodies.
The relationship with international governing bodies inevitably creates tension points where our interests may diverge. The Premier League, UEFA and FIFA are not just partners, fellow rule-makers and governing bodies; they are also competitors that run competitions involving English clubs.
Unless UEFA and FIFA provide unequivocal confirmation that nothing in this Bill raises concerns about state interference, the truth is that the Premier League will face ongoing vulnerability. The regulator could become a strategic pressure point of international football politics, with English football losing sovereignty over our domestic arrangements as a consequence.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to reassure the noble Baroness, who was unfortunately not able to attend the FA meeting yesterday, that the FA was very explicit—and it was asked very directly—that it is content with this Bill. It assured those of us who were present at that meeting yesterday that it has assurances that UEFA is not at all concerned with this Bill and is happy with it as it stands. Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was at that meeting, so he can confirm that that is what was said.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, if what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, is true—UEFA would say that, wouldn’t they?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.
This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.
I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will give way in a minute. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says about the income generation that this will provide to sports lawyers, but I think he would accept that there is plenty in this Bill for sports lawyers to get involved with in the new regulatory regime that it ushers in, and I suspect that they will find plenty to occupy them, with or without this amendment. I give way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord whether he would have been in the habit when he was a Minister of revealing the contents of private correspondence?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was always in the habit of complying with the Freedom of Information Act and, in this instance, my advice to the noble Baroness would be to give us as much as she can about UEFA’s concerns. It is very clearly a matter of concern here in your Lordships’ House. I hope the matter can be settled. Maybe the noble Baroness can say a bit more about the correspondence that she has had with UEFA but, if not, I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will continue to pursue this important issue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I had been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up to this group. I now feel myself in much more comfortable territory—under attack and revisiting the issue of international competitions.
I understand the intent of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like once again to reassure your Lordships’ House that these amendments are not necessary. At the very least, they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; at worst, they attempt to create an issue that does not exist.
I would be a brave and foolish Minister if I proposed legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing with the Secretary of State, just last month—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday—that the Bill, as drafted, does not breach UEFA statutes.
The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. I know that there have been requests to see the letter that UEFA has sent to the Government that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote to UEFA, following the conclusion of Committee, asking whether they would be content for me to release the letter, but they replied that they would rather that communications be kept private. It is important that I respect this request to ensure that the Government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders.
I turn to the issue of the FOI. This is—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on what a freedom of information request should state.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As if I planned this seamlessly, I was just coming on to the FoI request. In my view—this is not what I got from the Box note—this is a lesson on how to get an FoI request rejected, unless rejection was actually the intent. I hope the Benches opposite will bear with me as I explain. The FoI request referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson, was an extremely broad request for all correspondence ever to the department from UEFA. In the response, the requester was advised to narrow his request to a particular timeframe for the department to be able to respond. In my humble view, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but, clearly, the responder may choose to accept the advice from officials.
Turning to the specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, lose the opportunity for future litigation, I am afraid that, rather than protecting English football, his amendments would have serious unintended consequences. The amendments would see a regulator established by an Act of Parliament in this country take a position of deference to a private international organisation. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament but leave English football in a very weak position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day in Committee, that the Bill compounds the problem of UEFA’s and FIFA’s ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. While I do not accept that that is currently the case for the Bill, amending current drafting, to fix in statute that the regulator must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, would surely create such an issue. The result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the regulator and, in turn, for English football as a whole. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. I will attempt to respond to the comments that have been made.
I attended the meeting yesterday, and I was very attentive to what was said. The first question was about UEFA, and the first thing said in response by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who represented the FA at the meeting, was that UEFA has been
“happy since the start of the journey”.
I wrote that down; that was precisely what she said. I have to say to noble Lords that the correspondence that was sent in September last year to the Secretary of State reflected five pages of unhappiness about the potential of this legislation as far as UEFA was concerned. It is inconceivable, to any noble Lord who has read that letter, that that could possibly be seen as UEFA’s happiness since the start of the journey.
I make that point because I would never have started with the strength that I have had on this subject in Committee, and today, unless I had read the letter. I was sent two different copies of the same letter from two different sources; it has been widely distributed. Everything that I said in my opening remarks reflected the content of that letter and the very real concerns that UEFA had.
I am surprised that the Government have not published that letter, and I believe that they should have done so, because it is simply not true to say that UEFA has been happy since the start of the journey. It is also disingenuous to say that the request that was made was so wide as to have taken a great deal of time, when everybody knows precisely what correspondence was requested. The Written Question placed by James Wild was: please provide an electronic copy of correspondence from UEFA
“on the proposal to introduce a football regulator”.
That is specific; it is not wide in its remit. Everybody knows which letter we are talking about. It is disingenuous to say that it would take three and a half days for a civil servant to go through all the letters that UEFA has sent on the subject of the introduction of a football regulator, when this Bill has been only a year in the making, including the time that the Conservative Party spent on it. As I said, I would not have taken the view that I had—including when listening to the meeting yesterday—if I had not also registered very significant surprise at the comment that the Bill will take no powers away from the Football Association.
Lord Moynihan
“(3) For the purposes of this Act a “specified competition” includes—(a) the Premier League,(b) the English Football League, and(c) the National League,and any successors to those leagues.(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the competitions specified in section (3).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I shall speak also to my Amendment 82. The purpose of Amendment 6 is found in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of 20 November last year. It makes the very reasonable point that, in a Bill of this kind, it is probably wise and helpful to state in it whom it refers to. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes no reference to whom it refers.
The committee says that
“the Bill’s scope and purpose should appear clearly in the Bill. Clause 1 … states the purpose of this Bill as being to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Yet the meaning of ‘English football’ (and therefore the remit of the IFR) is incomplete and requires filling out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We recommend that the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill”.
This is because it is self-evident and clear that the
“Government policy is … that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated”.
It concludes:
“This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is fairly rare that a Bill of this magnitude and importance—certainly in sport—does not say to whom it refers but instead says that, in due course, the Secretary of State will come forward and tell us to whom it refers.
An argument has been put forward that if the Bill said to whom it refers it would make it hybrid. It is indeed interesting that, in describing this amendment, the Government called it a hybrid amendment—but it is not at all. As far as I was concerned when tabling it, it was to put in the Bill to whom this legislation refers, which seemed self-evidently sensible. However, I can see that there is the possibility that saying to whom it refers can turn it into a hybrid Bill—some people would hold that view. I was advised by the head of public Bill procedure that my amendment would put certain leagues in the Bill as leagues that need to be included in the independent football regulator’s remit, as set out in regulations.
The regulation-making power in Clause 2(3) does not specify any leagues and has a dehybridising provision attached to it. So it is interesting that, without naming the clubs or the leagues to which this legislation refers, the Bill still has a dehybridising provision attached to it.
I assume that the Government recognise that, if the Bill said to whom it referred, there was a possibility that this would make it hybrid. The way that this has been done so far is by avoiding putting a hybrid provision in the Bill, in that there may not be a genuine class of football clubs playing in certain leagues but not others. In the view of the officials, the leagues specified in my amendment do not form a genuine class. Therefore, if the House agreed to my amendment, the Bill would be at a high risk of becoming hybrid. I do not want to put that to a vote and test the will of the House because there is clear evidence, in both Houses, that there is a will to move forward with this legislation. If there is therefore a move by the Government to avoid it being tested for hybridity by putting the clubs and leagues into secondary legislation, that is the decision that underpins the Government’s wish to enact this legislation.
However, I will move this amendment because it is important to try not to avoid saying to whom and to which competition the Bill refers. When we scrutinise legislation we need to know to whom it refers. It is neither sensible nor wise to bring legislation forward before either House without clarity on that point. Therefore, I believe that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made an important point for the House to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that the name of this group on the list circulated by the Government Whips’ Office is a little unfortunate. This is an important issue into which we stumbled unwittingly in Committee. It is not clear that even the amendment which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has moved would make the Bill hybrid. This is a question which needs to be considered separately. Both in the amendment which my noble friend Lord Markham and I brought in Committee, and in the other amendments brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, relating to National League North and South, we stumbled across the conundrum that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has set out: that, by trying to say in the Bill whom it regulates, there was a risk that it would have to be considered hybrid and dealt with in that way.
As my noble friend has said, this reflects the concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. In its eighth report, it recommended explicitly that this delegated power be removed from the Bill. It said:
“Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is unfortunate that we have been unable to find a way around this problem. In one of the meetings which my noble friend Lord Markham and I had with the Minister and the Bill team between Committee and now, we asked them to go back to parliamentary counsel to see whether there was another way around this. No other way has been found, which is unfortunate.
I take the point that the Minister made in our conversation that it is very clear who is being regulated by this Bill in the first instance. There has been a lot of consultation with them, both during the previous Parliament and in this one. My concern, reflected in my Amendment 85, is about those who might be brought into scope—say the women’s game, or the National League North and South if, in due course, future Governments were to agree with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made in Committee. There are plenty of people in football who have not had the same degree of engagement with this Bill that the top five leagues have had which has got us to this point. That is why I tabled my Amendment 85, which concerns the dehybridising provisions of the secondary legislation that might be brought forward by this Bill to try to ensure that those football organisations that might come under the scope of the Bill in the future can have the same level of consultation and opportunity to give their views that the top five leagues in the men’s professional game have had hitherto.
I am grateful to all the minds that have been applied to this problem and to the members of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for highlighting it. I regret that we have not been able to find a way of saying in the Bill who is being regulated but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, none of us wants to delay the Bill by exploring this point further. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting one: hybridisation being caused, in effect, by naming some clubs, or rather the structures. The main thing here is that we want the Bill to progress. Any danger of hybridisation is something that we want to avoid. Thus I shall be resisting these amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the defect of imprecision is unfortunate, but it can be cured by secondary legislation, which is far preferable to the serious risk that the Bill would be hybrid.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group. It is an issue that we have discussed at length throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. I for one thank noble Lords who suggested that it would be helpful if we could progress the legislation so that we get the regulator in place.
On Amendments 6 and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, again, the noble Lord may be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist. There is no doubt as to which competitions are in scope of the regulator’s regime at this point, and which will not be. By delegating this to secondary legislation, we are following the precedent established by other similar sport-related legislation. Without wanting to seem ungracious, this includes the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be very familiar with, as he was the Bill Minister in the other place during its passage.
The approach that the Government are taking is both reasonable and the result of extensive, evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future- proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.
The Government’s intended scope for the regulator is well known; it has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this Government and the previous Government, which has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes to the scope in future would be based on clear evidence and proper consultation as part of a published Secretary of State assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of the power is set out on in the Bill. Any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
On Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many Bills, including the Media Bill, which I note he was the Minister for. To future-proof this legislation, regulations have to be able to be made in a timely way; getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings could undermine the Government’s ability to keep the regulatory framework up to date and ensure that it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the perceived issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.
As I set out in Committee and in our memorandum, the policy intent being the top five tiers of men’s English football has never been in doubt. Throughout the development of the policy over the past three years, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on this scope. This amendment would serve no purpose other than to delay the implementation and effect of the regulator. It would be set up, incurring a cost, but unable to act while crucial regulations establishing its scope were bogged down in years of process.
I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime and will not take up your Lordships’ time further relitigating this issue. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not around for the 1975 Bill—I was far too young—but I was present for the 1989 Bill, as the Minister rightly pointed out. I was working on that important Bill with my great and noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, whom I am glad to see in his place today.
There is a serious point, which was why I tabled this amendment. When we look closely at Bills and scrutinise them, we really must try to start from the premise that we know who we are talking about and which competitions we are talking about. When the Minister says that there is absolutely no doubt about which competitions and clubs we are talking about, one would expect the House and the Government to put it in the Bill.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 28, which refer to the owners’ and directors’ test, which goes far beyond the regulatory requirements in sport—in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League. It would require an additional test to be made to determine a potential owner of a football club, and that additional test is one of influence. My amendment seeks to leave out reference to the “influence” a person can have over the activities of a club in being considered for a licence to operate as a professional football club in England, to create clarity in the Bill.
In trying to understand what “influence” means, we are immediately referred to paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, where, in keeping with the financial regulation, we are once again somewhat left in the dark:
“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence or control for the purposes of this Schedule”—
in other words, for the purposes of the test. As such, as we scrutinise the Bill before us, we have no certainty as to the meaning of “significant influence”, yet its impact on the Premier League and on EFL clubs could prove far-reaching.
In Committee, I took the example of Newcastle to seek clarity from the Government by working through a specific case. Newcastle is majority-owned and financially controlled by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, the PIF. The PIF became the majority shareholder and de facto owner of the club, with 80% of the shares acquired, in October 2021. The chair of the PIF is the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of Saudi Arabia’s King. MBS, as he is known, runs the Saudi Government.
For once, there is a clear distinction between this Bill and the one inherited from the last Conservative Government. In the Conservative Bill, there was a protection against the Government-appointed regulator investigating whether MBS, the Crown Prince and chair of the PIF, was a fit and proper person to exercise control over Newcastle through the chairmanship of the PIF. This Government then deleted the very protection which the previous Conservative Government put in the Bill that required the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. This removal was a direct consequence of UEFA’s insistence to the Prime Minister that such protection politicises sport.
Sadly, I assure the House that, for anyone who has read this Bill, the answer to Newcastle fans is that, unlike under the Premier League or UEFA rules, the Crown Prince is open to investigation by the regulator, and the Minister was clear on that question. That is exactly what the Government intend the regulator to do, because they have removed the one protection it had. The regulator in the Bill has full rights to use his or her many powers to investigate and opine over the suitability, or otherwise, of any owner who exercises a degree of influence over any club, including Newcastle United. That is just one example. Such detailed and intrusive due diligence risks being replicated across the Premier League unless the Bill is amended as I propose.
The Secretary of State will write the guidance that determines what significant influence or control means, yet there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone on drafting that guidance. We can speculate what the definition might be by looking at other legislation where the same phrase is used, but there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will follow the same approach on this Bill as has been taken for other legislation. So, it is not worth relying on the Companies Act guidance, because there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to follow that guidance. The Premier League rulebook requirements about acquisition of control are significantly narrower in scope than this Bill. In fact, I could find no example of any legislation regarding any sport anywhere in the world that is so intrusive as to have the phrase “significant influence over”, as a criterion for ownership.
Without any doubt, the Crown Prince is an owner in the context of the Bill, an owner who exercises influence over the activities of the club as defined in proposed statute and regulation. I understand that, since December, it has been made clear to the Government that any proposal to put the Crown Prince through the detailed due diligence would be resisted. After all, it does not exist in any other sport worldwide, so it would be the first time any country had legislated to that extent for the ownership of a professional club. It would potentially lead to the PIF revising its proposals for a substantial investment in the Newcastle area, or so that is said in the world of sport. I hope that the Minister can dispel that rumour and confirm that nothing of the sort has been said to anyone in Number 10 or DCMS. It would also help the House to know, if the Saudi Crown Prince is to be excluded, whether all state entities are to be excluded from the influence test.
This is the most far-reaching direct political intervention in the running of any sport in the history of this country —a country which once gave the world rules and regulations for sport to be universal, autonomous and self-regulating, in the context of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a historic irony that it should now be our Government to be the first Government to take control of sport. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be. The influence test only creates uncertainty, militates against growth and has the potential to be deeply damaging to English football without generating any benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.
My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.
Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.
From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.
How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.
Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.
As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.
Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.
The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.
My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.
Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.
I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions
“a higher degree of influence”,
and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.
In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to
“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,
but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from
“a higher degree of influence”
or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we are on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the degree. Naturally, the removal of
“a higher degree of influence”
seems to be watering down the regulatory powers of the regulator. That is a very dangerous road to go down. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If Amendment 7 were pushed to a vote, we would not support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the forensic way he set out the case for his Amendment 7. The example with which he illustrated it—one he has used throughout the passage of this Bill—is certainly one that captured my attention, coming from Whitley Bay. It is causing some concern across Tyneside and among Newcastle United’s many fans across the world. I would be failing in my Geordie duty if I did not take this opportunity to wish the team the best of luck for the Carabao Cup this weekend.
I understand that the Minister cannot speak for a regulator that is to be independent and that does not yet exist, but I hope she will be able to say a bit about the implications of the Bill, such as the one that my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out. It clearly has some very serious consequences, not just for Newcastle in the example he has given but potentially for other teams in the future. I look forward to hearing what she says.
I want to say a little about my two amendments in this group, Amendments 46 and 47. As we said in Committee, among the many changes the Government have made to the Bill, compared with the Bill that the previous Government brought forward in the previous Parliament, was one we understand the case for. In the earlier version of the Bill, there was a provision stating that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s foreign and trade policy when making determinations for the owners’ test. This is an example of a concern that UEFA raised. That has been reported publicly, and the Government were very clear when they made the change to the Bill now before us that it was in response to concerns by UEFA that this undermined the independence of the regulator and that if it was to have regard to the Government’s foreign or trade policy, it would be too close to the Government’s view, in the eyes of UEFA.
I can understand the rationale for making that change, but in Committee I expressed some concerns about the unintended consequences of that and the potential loopholes. I gave the example that if there were to be two potential foreign owners of a club, one from a friendly nation and one from a nation with which this country does not enjoy friendly relations—we can all think of some examples that would spring readily to mind in the troubled world we face today—we would all be clear on which way we would like to see the independent regulator come down, even if the Government are not able to direct it, or if it is not able to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy.
My Amendment 46 would insert a provision highlighting
“whether the individual is reasonably believed to be, or have been, involved in terrorism related activity”.
I am sure that noble Lords would not want such a person to be an owner or director of one of our prominent football teams.
Amendment 47 sets out a number of agencies—the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Serious Fraud Office and others—that the new regulator may consult in carrying out its test. I have watered down my amendment from Committee to say “may consult”, not “must consult”, in the hope that this will find some greater support from the Government. I understand the reasons for the change that they have made to the Bill, but I do hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at these ways in which we might be able to tighten up the potential for a loophole, so that we can avoid seeing the sorts of people that none of us want to see taking control of English football clubs.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, for tabling their amendments, as it provides me with the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on these points and provide some clarification. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in wishing Newcastle good luck in their forthcoming match. We can agree on some things in your Lordships’ House.
I start with Amendments 7 and 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Before I go into a bit more detail, I would like to clarify whether incumbent owners or officers could be tested. Indeed, they can be tested. The regulator can test incumbent owners or officers where it has grounds for concern about their fitness or, for owners only, the source of their wealth—but, I repeat, only where there are grounds for concern. It is vital that we have a strong definition of an ultimate owner in order to give transparency to fans and hold owners to account. The Government are intent on providing the regulator with the tools to identify the ultimate owner as accurately as possible.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, point on precedent, this is why the Bill’s drafting takes its lead from the precedent of other Acts using “influence or control”, including the Companies Act’s “persons with significant control” regime, and the economic crime Act’s “beneficial owners” regime. We are confident that we have the correct definition to achieve the Bill’s aim. It ensures that an individual who exerts significant influence over a club, more than that of any other owner, can still be identified as the ultimate owner even if they do not have formal legal control. In fact, without this definition, ultimate owners could circumvent regulation. It is fundamental that clubs have suitable custodians in order to secure the future of clubs and, most importantly, to protect the game that fans hold so dear. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord can understand the importance of the definition.
I turn now to Amendment 28. As I outlined in Committee, I agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider significant influence by owners. That is why the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time in order to give this clarity. I want to make it clear that the Bill’s provisions that define “owner” in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation for the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day.
We have taken on board the valuable points the noble Lord raised in Committee. After looking at this again in detail, we stand by our position that the intent of this amendment is met without needing to change the Bill. We do agree that, before guidance is produced, clubs should not be expected to identify those who meet the definition of an owner by exercising significant influence or control. I would therefore like to provide greater reassurance that the scenario the noble Lord is concerned about should not be an issue. I can commit that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control to the regulator.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on why we have not defined “significant influence and control” on the face of the Bill and are putting it in guidance instead, this approach is based on precedent. As I mentioned, the Companies Act also sets out the definition of “significant influence or control” in guidance rather than legislation. The Secretary of State’s guidance will give clarity to owners about who meets the definition.
Turning now to Amendments 42, 43, 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I think it was a bit cheeky and that one should take a slight exception to the notion that Delia Smith is just a cook. I would argue that she is, through her professional career, arguably also a highly successful businesswoman. Leaving that point aside, however, the requirement to notify is there for a reason. Keeping unsuitable owners and officers out is a core part of the regulator’s regime. We want the regulator to block these individuals from entering the system, and not to have difficult, costly battles to remove them after the fact. So it needs to know who a club’s respective new owners and officers are before they buy or join the club. Put simply, the regulator needs to be able to gather the information that it needs to test them and work with them and the club to ensure that they submit a proper application in good time. It will help the regulator prepare to act quickly when it receives the application.
Clause 27 plays another important function. If a person has, for whatever reason, become an owner or officer of a club without the regulator first having found them suitable, they still have to notify the regulator as soon as possible after the event. Without this provision, there could be untested, unsuitable individuals in the system that the regulator was unaware of.
I move now to Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. We agree that it would not be right for money related to terrorism to find its way into our clubs. The Bill, as already drafted, already stops that through its provisions on serious criminal conduct. Serious criminal conduct includes offences listed in Section 41 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. That is an extensive list of terrorism-related offences, ranging, to name a few, from membership of a banned organisation to encouraging terrorism to offences related to funding terrorism. Serious criminal conduct, including these terrorism offences, is considered under the ODT “source of wealth” and “honesty and integrity” tests. The club licensing regime lets the regulator block funding that is connected to serious criminal conduct. That is why we are confident that the Bill appropriately and thoroughly deals with terrorism-related activities.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 47, also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. I am pleased to have another opportunity to highlight the information-sharing agreements that the regulator can and will use to its advantage. I absolutely agree that the regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the discussions we have had on this point.
The Bill establishes a gateway for the regulator to share information with a range of organisations, including HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. It also creates a specific gateway for HMRC to share information with the regulator and empowers the Secretary of State to create other such gateways by regulations, as needed. The regulator may already consult whoever it needs to in order to make robust decisions. The regulator will seek information and expertise from relevant organisations to help it to stay live to both national and international concerns. The shadow regulator is already building a strong relationship with the NCA and law enforcement to ensure that the regulator is in a strong position to gather and receive the information it needs. We are confident that the Bill adequately empowers the regulator to gather such information. For the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and his comment that by accepting this amendment, we would be watering down the regulation. On the contrary, if you look at the regulatory requirements of FIFA and UEFA, the FA, the Premier League or any of the other national governing bodies in football in Europe—which I have done—it is not a matter of watering down. This makes a much more intrusive additional layer of regulation which does not exist in any of the other countries. I simply put it to the noble Lord that there must be a reason for that. There is a good reason why, to the detailed regulation which exists in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League, it is unnecessary to add this additional layer.
My noble friend Lord Parkinson on the Front Bench mentioned the exchange that took place over the clause having regard to foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. It was a classic example of when UEFA said “Jump” and the British Government’s position was “How high?” I fear that if you take the FA out of the equation, which has happened now, we will see far more work for lawyers in the future than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, anticipates. His point, however, on this amendment was perceptive and accurate. If the legislation is not changed this evening, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State at a future opportunity to make it absolutely clear in his consideration, which he will undertake, to make sure that there is clarity on that.
As far the Companies Act is concerned, I simply say to the House that there is no requirement whatever for the Secretary of State to take it into consideration when opining on this subject. If there is, it should be written into the Bill. Once again, as I have mentioned before, there are 31 different areas where we are going to wait to hear the detail of the competitions, the clubs and exactly what “influence” means—this is all for the future. This is in many respects a shell Bill, but using “influence” over has the impact that I have mentioned in the example of Newcastle, and I am very concerned about it.
I ask the Minister to write to me if she would, because I appreciate that she will not have had time to respond to the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the owners of Newcastle, not just with regard to the club, but to the response to this Bill when enacted in their investment in the Newcastle area, over and beyond their financing of the club. As I understand it, those rumours that are circulating are well grounded, but the Minister will no doubt be able to tell me. This is meant to be a growth Bill: all regulators are meant to grow the businesses that they regulate, but I fear that this will have exactly the opposite effect, and I think Newcastle may be on the receiving end of that. If we do not change the Bill to remove the “influence” over as a key criterion of control, we will have made an error, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Maude of Horsham
“3A “(1) The Secretary of State is to nominate a person (“the nominated person”) to be the chair.(2) The nominated person must appear before a relevant Parliamentary Committee if invited to do so.(3) The Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person unless the relevant Parliamentary Committee has held a confirmatory vote if the Committee wishes to do so.(4) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(5) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(6) A relevant Parliamentary Committee is any Committee of the House of Commons, or House of Lords, or of both Houses, which has notified the Secretary of State, in writing, that they have assumed the function of scrutiny of football regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the chair may undergo pre-appointment scrutiny and be approved by a select committee of Parliament.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I do not need to detain your Lordships for long on this.
The amendment puts into the Bill what the Minister has already committed to in her letter to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on 13 January, in which she said that the chair of the independent football regulator will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the DCMS Select Committee. We welcome that commitment. It is a good commitment. Of course, her word is her bond. But her word is not necessarily the bond of future Ministers, and it is important that this commitment is in the Bill. It is very hard to see why there could be any objection to that.
I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment. If the Minister is inclined to say that she will bring back at Third Reading an improved version which gives effect in substance to what is contained in my amendment, I will be content not to press this amendment to a Division.
However, it is important to reflect on why it matters that this appointment, which will happen if this all goes through, will happen on a regular basis. New chairs will be appointed. The nature of the debates that we have been having in your Lordships’ Chamber today illustrates how important it is. It remains the case that what is being introduced for the first time is a regulator of a sport which includes the most successful sporting league in the world of any kind. English football is a huge success. We take risks with its success at our peril but also at the political peril of the Government of the day, who, if things go wrong, will rightly be blamed for setting this up in a way that has created that peril.
I know from my own experience that subjecting the chair of an important public appointment to scrutiny by a Select Committee can be hazardous. I remember an appointment that I made as a Minister was subjected to that scrutiny. The candidate whom we had selected did not measure up under the examination of the Select Committee. We had to re-run the process. That candidate had not shown themselves to be across the issues and the sensitivities, and that was an appointment which required strength and the ability to stand up to the Government and resist the blandishments of the Government, whoever the Government were—and it was the Government that I was a member of. The Select Committee was right. So it is important, given how the actions of this regulator can damage something which is important economically for the country but also very dear to the hearts of billions of people across the world. It gives pleasure and, periodically, as we all know, pain, to many of us. It is very important that the person carrying these awesome responsibilities is fully tested before they take up their role.
While we welcome the commitment that the Minister has made, that this appointment will be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee, I urge the House to support the idea that this commitment should be in the Bill, for other Ministers in the future who may not have the same good intentions that she has. Therefore, I urge the House to support this amendment, unless she is willing to commit that she will come back at Third Reading with something giving substantive effect to what this amendment would introduce. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, to respond briefly to the noble Lord’s comments, I quite understand where he is coming from in ensuring a proper and effective process in securing good-quality public appointments. His reflections on his experience were very interesting.
However, this amendment possibly goes a bit too far. I am not sure the noble Lord would have approved of giving Parliament the effective veto that his amendment, looking at the detail, clearly does. I am sure my noble friend the Minister has made an offer in good faith to ensure that there can be pre-appointment scrutiny of the post of chair of the regulator. I hear what the noble Lord says but, tempting though it is, it would lead us down a path which is not common in our jurisdiction. I know that in the States, there are public appointment processes in which, effectively, Congress can veto an appointment, but I do not think that is the road that we want to go down.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Of course, it is right that it is usual for an adverse vote in a Select Committee where there is pre-appointment scrutiny to be only advisory. I cannot remember, but there may even have been an example of a Government ignoring that, and it has not been binding. If the Government want to come back with an alternative version which reflects the comments the noble Lord is making, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment in favour of that. But the reality, of course, is that whether in the Bill it is a binding vote of the Select Committee or an advisory vote, the effect is pretty much the same.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Paragraph (4) of the noble Lord’s amendment says the following:
“Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person”.
According to my interpretation, that is clearly a veto. I am sure the Minister will reflect on the noble Lord’s words.
The other amendments in the group which the Minister has tabled today, and which my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have signed up to, are pretty straightforward and I am sure the House will support them. They simply make sure that there is a proper process to ensure declaration and registration of members of the regulatory board and the expert panel, and I commend the Minister for bringing those forward.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, in the debate on the sunset clause in Committee, it was evident that the Committee felt strongly that there should be greater post-legislative scrutiny. The Committee was clearly agreed on the end, if not necessarily the means. I am glad that since that was moved, the Minister has tabled amendments which are extremely helpful in that regard. I ask her, in that spirit of helpfulness, to respond to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham and me. Its effect is certainly capable of being interpreted in the way the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just described. It may be that the Minister has some alternative to offer at Third Reading, as my noble friend suggested, and we await with interest what she has to say.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but I just want to describe my experience. In 2009, I went before the Health Select Committee as a candidate for appointment to the chair of the Food Standards Agency. The record will show that the vast majority of questions I was asked were to do with my previous role as the Housing and Regeneration Minister, working for Lord Prescott. Three of the Members I was facing lived in areas where they did not want any development, which I had approved. They were not at all interested in the appointment that I was up for and being scrutinised on, and they went back to the past, so we have to be careful about that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, and I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Given that, to be fair, noble Lords on both sides of the House have consistently advocated proper scrutiny and oversight of this new regulator, which, after all, has unprecedented sweeping powers, it is appropriate and reasonable for us to seek to test the personal manifesto, vision and leadership of someone who assumes the chairmanship.
We are told that there are some interesting names in the frame: Sanjay Bhandari, for instance, the Kick It Out chairman, has been mooted as a potential leader of the new regulator. Whether that happens is another issue, but the Minister will know that the civil service public appointments process can sometimes be criticised for its secretiveness: it is not that transparent until right at the end, when the basket of appointables is placed in front of the Minister. With that in mind, the case for opportunities for new candidates to put their arguments to parliamentarians for pre-legislative scrutiny is quite compelling.
Having served for four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I know from experience that, yes, it was make or break. Senior civil servants and Permanent Secretaries did sometimes drop a clanger at those meetings; equally, they often rose to the occasion. There was inherent value in them having the opportunity to put their case.
Finally, there is a precedent. Senior appointments to the Financial Conduct Authority routinely go before the Treasury Select Committee, and there are other Committees that interrogate the candidates put forward. Just because it has not been done before does not mean it should not be tried on this occasion, given that we have a brand-new body with wide-ranging powers.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this amendment, which does not undermine the Bill. Even though I am very much a Football Governance Bill sceptic, I know it is going to happen, so I want to improve it. Irrespective of party affiliation, we will improve it by testing the mettle of candidates for senior leadership roles. For those reasons, I implore the Minister to look at this amendment benignly and perhaps support it, if not tonight, certainly in the form of a new amendment along these lines at Third Reading.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as the debate has progressed, I have become a little more concerned about this. There is clearly the idea that this independent body is going to be a political football—pardon the pun—kicked around at the beginning, in the form of the question of who is acceptable. We have to trust independence a little more, I am afraid. None of us will be happy with everybody all the time, but I think we have to have it.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 10 and to support the other amendments in this group. Our amendment is quite modest and uncontroversial, in that we seek to limit the number of individuals appointed to the expert panel to 20. I think we would all agree that 20 is actually quite a large number. It is the figure that was in the Conservative version of the Bill, which for some reason the Government removed. I must be honest, 20 sounds like a lot to me, so to enable that figure to be higher probably leaves us open to jokes such as, “How many regulators does it take to change a light bulb?” Twenty will definitely do it, and I hope the Government will be happy to bear that in mind. There is a serious point here. We talk about wanting a light touch and to remove red tape, but a body of more than 20 would definitely be unwieldy.
I support the amendments tabled by the Minister and others. I welcome transparency being at the heart of the regulator’s work, and it is entirely correct that any potential conflicts should be openly declared.
Finally, there is a consensus that Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Maude is a sensible move. As my noble friend said, we are perfectly happy to accept the assurances the Minister gave about subsequent chairs. She is happy for this to happen for the first chair, so the precedent has been set. I therefore hope that it is not a big ask that some assurances are made for future ones, and that there is flexibility in respect of the format.
I will also take the opportunity, given that there has been quite a bit of press speculation, to ask whether there is any update on the timing for announcing the potential candidates and when we might see them in place.
I hope the Minister will either accept this amendment or give an undertaking for Third Reading. If not, my noble friend will have our full support if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
It was slightly disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, when we are talking about pre-scrutiny of approval, to name a proposed candidate when, apparently, there are two proposed candidates. If he knows the other candidate, perhaps it might be helpful if he named him or her as well.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I was merely reporting what had been published on Sky News, and I think thousands of football fans would have considered it. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that no disingenuousness was intended.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. On Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, I understand the desire for the scrutiny of the appointment of the regulator’s chair and I am grateful for the thoughtful speech he made outlining the reasons behind the amendment. Getting the chair right, both now and in the future, will be pivotal for the success of the new regulator. I will not go into names or press speculation. I understand that progress is being made on the appointment. I am not involved in that, so I will not comment further.
The chair, as the public leader of the regulator, must be a competent and strong individual, free from any vested interests. I assure noble Lords from across the House that the existing public appointments process is robust, run in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and one that Parliament can and should have faith in.
As per Cabinet Office guidance, parliamentary Select Committees can already carry out pre-appointment scrutiny hearings and offer their views to the Secretary of State. The chair of the regulator is subject to that scrutiny. The Secretary of State will, of course, weigh any committee’s views carefully, as the Cabinet Office guidance already sets out; this will be the case for the future.
However, the Governance Code on Public Appointments sets out that Ministers have the ultimate responsibility for appointment decisions for which they are accountable to Parliament. It is not common for Parliament to hold a statutory right of veto over such public appointments and we cannot see a reason to set that precedent with this regulator. In response to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, our view is that this amendment would represent a veto.
Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seeks to place a cap on the number of members of the regulator’s expert panel. The regulator’s independent expert panel will play a vital role in making various important decisions across the regulator’s regime, when and where it is appropriate. It is essential that the panel has a range of relevant expertise and experience to reflect the diversity and complexity of decisions that may come before it.
The number of members of the expert panel is to be determined by the chief executive officer in response to the operational need. The Government do not want to fetter the effectiveness of the expert panel by introducing a cap on the maximum number of members of the panel as this amendment seeks to do, however sensible that level may appear to noble Lords. The regulator needs the flexibility to react in the event of high workload for the panel. The regulator will be required to deliver value for money and has a regulatory principle underpinning this. We do not believe that the CEO would appoint and maintain an unnecessarily bloated panel.
Finally, I turn to government Amendments 9 and 11. In Committee, my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton, among others, emphasised the real importance of protecting the regulator from conflicts of interest. The Government are in complete agreement that the independence of the regulator must be protected, including against vested interests. Although the Bill already makes provision for managing such conflicts of interest, we have tabled government amendments to strengthen these protections even further and beyond any doubt.
The amendments require the regulator to establish and maintain a system whereby the members of the regulator’s board and its expert panel must declare their relevant interests, and a record of these interests must be kept and maintained. This will ensure that all board and expert panel members declare relevant interests from the outset of their appointment and on an ongoing basis. This is good practice not only for transparency but to help the regulator manage any conflicts and to insulate its decisions from potential vested or competing interests.
I hope that those reasons have reassured your Lordships’ House and that noble Lords will not press their amendments. I will move government Amendments 9 and 11 in due course.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. On the comments made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am open-minded about whether the Bill should contain what is effectively a veto or whether it should accord with the more usual practice. As I said, if the Minister were to give an undertaking that she would come back with an amendment framed in those terms at Third Reading, I would be willing not to press this amendment to a Division, but I have not heard that commitment from her, which is a disappointment.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is obviously scarred by his personal experience. I simply remind him that hard cases make bad law, and his sounds like a particularly hard case, for which he has my sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, seemed to be recommending—arguing, really—that there should be no pre-appointment scrutiny at all, let alone whether it should be in the Bill. Therefore, he is presumably urging the Minister to withdraw the commitment she has made that there should be pre-appointment scrutiny. On the substantive point he made in arguing that scrutiny would turn the regulator into a political football, the reverse is actually the case. It is important that the regulator should be genuinely independent, and my experience of observing these scrutiny procedures is that Select Committees are particularly concerned to test the capability of the nominee to exercise genuine, robust independence. Rather than turning the nominee into someone who is overly influenced by the scrutiny, it is to test whether they are capable of withstanding it. That is the consideration.
I am grateful for all contributions, but in the absence of the quite modest commitment I have requested the Minister to make, I want to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Board
6A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Board, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Expert Panel
23A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Expert Panel, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.
“(d) to monitor and promote the reduction of English football’s climate and environmental impacts (referred to in this Act as “the environmental objective”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add climate and environment impact reduction to the IFR’s objectives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 12 but I will speak to Amendment 13. Is that all right?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
You would need to say “not moved” to Amendment 12, but if you speak to it now you can then move it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you very much.
Amendment 13 is quite an important amendment for me, because a noble Lord challenged me earlier, saying, “Surely you’re not going to bother to push this to a vote; otherwise, it could be in every Bill”. Well, yes, of course: as a Green, I would like an awareness of the Climate Change Act to be inherent in every Bill. Unfortunately, it is not at the moment. That is why this amendment is so important.
I am a football fan. Despite being a Green and despite all its flaws, I absolutely love football. I am well aware of the power that football clubs have over their fan base and their sphere of influence into wider society. We all know now that we have to limit our impact on the planet, that we need to use less plastic and that everything can be polluted by plastic—our own lungs, the sea, absolutely everything. Some clubs are trying very hard, but many, many fail.
Amendment 13 tries in particular to acknowledge the link between environmental and financial sustainability and the urgent need for the games regulator to be empowered to drive greener practices. The idea that the independent football regulator’s remit should include consideration for environmental sustainability is backed by Pledgeball and fellow sport and sustainability organisations Sports for Climate Action and Nature at Loughborough University, the Cool Down Sport for Climate Action Network, and the Football and Climate Change Newsletter.
In 2021, in response to a number of high-profile crises that had arisen in the sport, there was the fan-led review, which has been discussed already, chaired by the former Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch. Many of the review’s 10 findings focused on financial stability at the clubs, fan input, equality, inclusion, diversity and welfare, but it is also crucial that a focus on environmental standards and sustainability is part of the regulator’s remit.
In Committee, Ministers resisted amendments about environmental sustainability on the basis that such measures would put a burden and cost on the regulator and on the clubs. Ministers also argued that voluntary sustainability efforts by clubs and leagues were, and would continue to be, sufficient. However, although some clubs are doing commendable work in this area, progress is inconsistent, erratic and lacks enforcement. Without regulation, football will have fragmented, inadequate responses to climate threats.
It has been predicted that, at the current rate of climate change, one in five English clubs could be at high or very high risk of flooding by 2050. The average grass-roots pitch already loses around five weeks of play every season due to adverse weather. Approximately 120,000 fixtures are called off each year due to unplayable conditions of various kinds.
Additionally, government policy already links financial stability to climate risk. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee is required to consider climate risks in its financial stability assessments. Defra has also asked several major UK regulators, including Ofcom, to submit a report on how climate risks are affecting the sector. Football should be no different.
My Amendment 13 would ensure that clubs comply with the Climate Change Act 2008 to secure the long-term environmental sustainability of English football. I simply feel that this is too important to leave, so I will move it later.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 25 seeks to address a key issue: how the new regulator will operate in practice and the transparency with which it will exercise its powers. But first, I welcome the Government’s decision to adjust the frequency of the Secretary of State’s statement on football governance from every three years to every five. This sensible change now aligns the timing of various key processes across the Bill, ensuring consistency, clarity and practical efficiency. I thank the Minister for listening to the points raised in Committee and responding positively with her amendment.
On guidance and consultation and my amendment, the Bill currently requires guidance only for discretionary licence conditions, leaving many critical regulatory functions without similar obligations. I want to briefly highlight three key areas where greater clarity is essential and guidance should, in my view, be mandatory.
First, financial sustainability is the regulator’s primary purpose, yet there is no obligation for the regulator to define how it will assess soundness or resilience through guidance. Clubs making long-term investment decisions deserve clarity on how these will be evaluated. Can the Minister please confirm that the regulator will define these incredibly important terms, which influence the overall approach the regulator takes and therefore what regulated parties should expect, in the “state of the game” report?
Secondly, the owners’ and directors’ test—vital for responsible investment—lacks detail in the legislation itself. Without requirements to consult clubs and existing and potential investors on its design, we risk creating unnecessary uncertainty. There is a requirement to consult on the definition of “significant influence or control” within the ownership rules, but no consultation requirements for the test itself.
Thirdly, the backstop power over financial distributions could fundamentally alter football’s economics, yet the regulator need not explain its approach or methodology ahead of a determination. For a mechanism with such profound implications, this seems to represent an obvious gap in procedural and legal safeguards. This uncertainty around guidance could create practical problems. The Premier League’s broadcast deal runs to 2030. Clubs like mine are making infrastructure decisions spanning similar timeframes or even longer.
How can responsible planning occur without regulatory clarity? Surely mandatory guidance across a whole range of areas in this Bill would be conducive to generating greater clarity and regulatory certainty. These amendments would require the regulator to provide guidance across all functions and to consult appropriately. I am not seeking to constrain the regulator’s authority, just to ensure that powers are exercised transparently and coherently. If, as the Minister assures us, this will be a collaborative regulator, I ask her to commit to embedding that principle more comprehensively in the legislation itself.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling this significant addition to the Bill.
Our national game has a vital role to play in support of the Government’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050, not least because there is a vital connection between the long-term financial sustainability of English football and its long-term environmental sustainability. We know that climate change impacts sport; we therefore need to equip clubs, especially those in the lower leagues, to mitigate the vagaries of extreme weather, whether in the form of droughts or torrential rain. Incorporating a duty to monitor and reduce the climate impacts of English football would only enhance its value to our nation and local communities.
Football clubs have a history of social, cultural and even moral leadership. I celebrate the example of Kick It Out, a campaign established in 1993, under the name Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, to raise awareness and tackle all forms of discrimination in sport. Given this precedent, I invite noble Lords to imagine the difference it would make in South Yorkshire if Barnsley, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United, Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday football clubs together led the way in our region to a more climate-friendly future.
Why should English football not be on the front foot, rather than on the back foot, in the journey to net zero? I am tempted to call it an open goal. I commend the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we had a useful debate in Committee on environmental amendments. I was one of those promoting them, but I was much reassured by the Minister’s comments that they were not necessary. I support those comments. This is where I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: if, with a bit of research, she looks at the workings of all the other regulators, even the FCA and so on, she will find that all of them publish a commitment to sustainability and acknowledge the role and responsibility they have for ensuring that we meet net-zero targets. These amendments, well-intentioned though they are, do not need to be in the Bill. They are not necessary.
It would be better if we focused on what clubs are currently doing. My own club, Brighton & Hove Albion, has a sustainable transport policy, and most football clubs now commit to such policies. I think we get most of our fans to the grounds by some form of public transport—I am told that it is about 50% or 60%—and most clubs would recognise that as an agreeable target. Legislation is not required to do that; what is required is close working with the local authority and the transport undertakers.
While there is a good intention behind this proposal, I do not think we need to have it in the Bill. Most regulators already subscribe to statements on sustainable practices. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield made a good point, clubs are already working hard in this area to promote good environmental practice. Although these amendments are well intentioned, I believe that they are unnecessary, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will not push them.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27—not as a learned lawyer, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is in his place; not as a former Sports Minister with immense understanding, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; and not as a senior and experienced administrator of a huge club, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brady—but as a humble fan. I have not spoken much on the Bill, but when I have, I have spoken as a lifelong football fan who pays regularly to watch my beloved club, Tottenham Hotspur, for better or worse. I very much sense, feel and hear the varied opinions of fans on the independent football regulator, reflecting a mix of hope, scepticism and concern.
I acknowledge that there is some enthusiasm on the terraces, but it is tempered by doubts about the regulator’s scope and power. Some fans are worried that it will not address their immediate concerns, such as the rising ticket prices, the loss of cup replays or clubs prioritising lucrative overseas pre-season tours over local engagement. Posts on X suggest scepticism about whether the independent football regulator can truly challenge the entrenched power of the Premier League’s wealthy owners. As one user noted:
“It can’t force clubs to lower ticket prices”.
Others fear that it may impose bureaucratic burdens without delivering meaningful change, potentially even threatening the competitiveness of English football. Fans can be quite astute in their analysis and hopes for what a regulator was intended to do, as they now meet the harsh reality of what a regulator might actually do.
This comes at a time when some clubs—dare I use the example of English football’s biggest commercial club, Manchester United—face demonstrations from their fans demanding change. Fans are themselves motivated by a myriad of reasons, and much of their ire has to do with the performance of their team on the pitch. However, one of the issues at the heart of the Manchester United fans’ fury is ticket prices. That was why a specific fan demonstration was organised—following the raising of ticket prices to £66 and the removal of some concessions in December last year—and the issue continues to rumble on. In February, the Fulham Supporters’ Trust described the decision to sell adult away tickets for the Old Trafford cup tie at between £51 and £61 as “callous”, with away tickets capped at £30 for Premier League matches.
I do not want to be accused of picking on Manchester United, especially as it is having as poor a season as my own club, where the natives are also extremely restless, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, knows. Again, that is for many footballing reasons, but also because of the restriction on ticket concessions that was announced this season. The same can be said of a number of other Premier League clubs, where ticket prices are going only one way and potentially acting as a barrier to many fans experiencing the beautiful, great game at a ground.
It must be acknowledged that clubs, especially Premier League clubs, are facing challenges. Clubs generate huge revenues, but, equally, they have huge outgoings and are continually chasing footballing talent and investing to achieve success in a highly competitive international market. They also face national financial pressures, such as the impact of the Labour Government’s national insurance increases on their employee base; the Labour Government’s increase of the national minimum wage; the further compliance costs that will accompany the Labour Government’s new Employment Rights Bill; and then the independent football regulator’s levy. We can debate the impact of the IFR on the footballing pyramid, but a question I share with millions of football fans is: will all these additional costs and that of the IFR on EPL clubs, and every single club in the land, mean that ticket prices will go up?
Rather than meeting the aspiration of helping fans to reduce ticket prices, the cost of the independent financial regulator is likely to do the exact opposite. Therefore, I have sought to make a modest amendment to Clause 14: that the IFR’s annual report include
“a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices”,
to give us fans some comfort that the burden of the independent football regulator will not fall on us.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the debates on this Bill have been somewhat lengthy, so I will be incredibly brief. I support, with absolute delight, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on her Amendment 13. I do so for three reasons.
The first relates to the oft overused phrase “soft power”. No one can deny football’s huge following or the impression it has on so many—and that applies equally to fans in this country and abroad. As has been said already, the Premier League makes up the largest share of the UK’s television exports, and football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in just shy of 190 countries. As noble Lords have noted, throughout the ages football has pushed and campaigned on many important issues, so it is right that the many things that clubs promote at home and abroad should include the environment, nature and broader sustainability.
That leads me to my second point, which is, in effect, football’s hard power. Clubs can make a difference through not just all the sites they own but what they offer during matches to the fans.
My third point is broader: I wish to speak to those who cannot support this amendment, however well intentioned it is, because they do not support the idea of a regulator. The debate we are having now is about this amendment; it is not about the Bill in its entirety. Whether we agree with it or not, the Bill will end up passing. So the question to me now is not about the virtue of the regulator but about how we can improve it.
To conclude, this amendment does not have specific targets or rules on what exactly clubs should fund or what their boards should look like, or seeks to interfere needlessly in how they are run or how their games are played. The key is that this amendment calls for regard of what is already in other legislation. It is something that we are all expected to do ourselves and, as has been said, that so many clubs do already under their own steam: to play their part. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I respectfully urge all noble Lords to support her.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood, as well as my noble friend Lord Maude’s earlier point about the individual who will become the regulator. While we are discussing Manchester United, I note that I am a season ticket holder of the club; my noble friend Lord Ranger made a point about the recent increase in ticket prices.
This regulator will be answerable to supporters, while at the same time—as my noble friend Lady Brady said—making it clear what the owners of the football clubs can expect for investment purposes. This independent football regulator will be located in Manchester. Given the sheer size and scale of the protests—75,000 people go to Old Trafford week in, week out, and they may be minded to go to the location of the regulator— I would be interested to know what calibre of person, he or she, will be able to cope with those protests, which will inevitably end up outside their premises. How will they interact with those supporters, while at the same time making sure that they act professionally and responsibly so that the owners of the football businesses can carry on with the investment that we all want? Ultimately, this is about the future success of the Premier League.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 24, which reduces the minimum frequency of the revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years. That is a positive direction of travel, reining in a disproportionately burdensome bureaucracy. I was fearful that clubs might be in a perpetual state of having to fulfil the paperwork rather than improve governance, let alone improve football. I am glad to see that amendment.
Another worry that some of us have raised is the need to rein in politicised mission creep, so I oppose Amendments 12 and 13. Amendment 13 seems to be the focus, linking this Bill to the Climate Change Act and linking environmental sustainability to economic sustainability and making climate and environmental impact reduction part of the IFR’s objectives. I think this is incredibly unwise for a number of reasons. It goes against the Government’s Amendment 14, debated earlier, which all sides of the House lauded and I agree with, which is a commitment to avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.
Let us be honest: outside of football, even the Government are now acknowledging that net-zero targets and environmental regulations are often expensive and burdensome barriers to economic growth. They do not allow the Government and whole swathes of the corporate world to pursue, for example, infrastructure projects such as building houses. I do not think that it is uncontentious to say that, because “environmental sustainability” and “economic sustainability” will appear in the same provision, there is no tension between them; I think there is. I also think that this would really be an example of scope creep, which the Minister has assured us will not happen; UEFA and FIFA have been promised that it will not happen, as we were told earlier.
In Committee, I spoke against adding football clubs into this ever-greater, non-football-related political territory, setting essentially politically driven environmental hoops to jump through. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government had no intention of accepting these Green demands into the legislation, and I was reassured. But I want the Minister to promise, if she can, that the independent regulator will not—once this Bill is passed, which undoubtedly it will be—simply slip them into the governance remit. I am worried because the green lobby is very active, persistent and wealthy and, to be honest, has an interest in pursuing this after this Bill is long gone.
Larger clubs with lots of money might well be able to go along with a lot of these things that this Bill demands. We know that there are all sorts of Premier League football clubs at the moment that are more than happy to have sponsorship by green energy companies and so on. We have seen a lot of that happen. I think this could amount to eco-virtue signalling that ticks the social responsibility boxes of the big clubs and a sort of greenwashing that we know the corporate social responsibility industry does so well. But I fear that it will distract smaller clubs from their core role of thinking about financial stability and improving their governance so that we have better football clubs, and it will drag them into this extraneous environmental sustainability world.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, many clubs do what they can to promote the environment, and that is all well and good and I totally support it; what I do not support is Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. What the noble Baroness is seeking to do is to impose on the IFR a duty to exercise its functions in a way that is compatible with the Climate Change Act. If the Climate Change Act already imposes duties on everybody including the IFR, this is otiose and unnecessary; if the Climate Change Act does not impose duties in any event on the IFR, I am very doubtful indeed that it is appropriate to use this legislation, which is concerned with many other topics, to impose such a duty. In my view, it is not necessary to put this in the Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes a substantial point about why in law it probably will not really help, but in spirit I am with it.
More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, made an important point about fans not being able to afford to watch football. I have been amazed for a long time, probably about 20 years, that working people in particular, with perhaps two children, might visit two games a week. I do not know how they afford it. It has always been, generally, a working person’s game—it is not a class issue, but I think, generally speaking, it has been—and it has inelastic demand. By that, I mean that it is a tribal thing: we cannot explain the reason that we get excited and depressed about football teams. I am hoping that Sheffield Wednesday will win tonight; I will be depressed, I will be—
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Not surprised when that does not happen.
There is something within us that is very hard. The most obvious thing a football fan could do would be to stop going to the games to effect change in a club, but it is very hard for them to do so. Therefore, a regulator asking reasonable questions of a club about why it has increased ticket prices is a very sensible option. If it is there to check on the validity and, I suppose, the due diligence around the ownership, I would have thought that this is the very least it could do in looking around the due diligence and looking after the fans.
No one else really looks after the fans. Outside the Premier League, the quality of looking after the fans is pretty awful. From the toilets to the restaurants—if they ever pass as that—it has traditionally been pretty diabolical. I would have thought that the regulator ought to be looking at such things, as well as whether the money going into the club is straightforward and comes from the sources that are alleged. I will certainly support the ticket price amendment, should it be put.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to this debate, I have discovered that I have no original points to make. I discovered, having had a quick discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that if it is in law anyway, it is law. On enforcement capacity, probably the earlier amendment of the two was better or more relevant, but we have already said that it is out of scope following Committee.
When it comes to ticket pricing, it will be interesting to hear what the Government think will be done, or what is within the capacity of the regulator, to at least justify ticket price increases. There is enormous pressure for prices to go up, but you also have a duty to your community. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this. I will base any reaction on the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the two government amendments in this group. They reflect amendments I tabled in Committee. The first reduces the frequency with which the Secretary of State may revise the football governance statements, bringing it more in line with the parliamentary cycle rather than every three years. The second removes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the definition of the football season. This always seemed a disproportionate power. Why a Cabinet Minister ought to define a football season is a point that has bemused many football fans. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 24 and 87, which she has brought forward on those points.
Like other noble Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood for his passionate speech in favour of his Amendment 27, which seeks to require the regulator’s annual report to include a review of the impact of its activities on ticket prices. The important argument here is not that the regulator should dictate ticket prices to clubs. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made about how clubs often try the patience of their fans, but it is a commercial decision for clubs to take. There is a distinct possibility that the activities of the new regulator may force clubs to increase ticket prices further.
This is different from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, made in pointing to the duty already in the Bill. The regulator will charge a levy to clubs. It will bring in higher compliance and legal costs, and many clubs will have to hire extra staff to comply with the new legal duties. That is all acknowledged in the Government’s impact assessment. When we couple that with the Government’s job tax, the increase in the minimum wage and the impending duties in the Employment Rights Bill, we can see that football clubs will be facing significant cost pressures over the coming years.
Inevitably, the only solution for many clubs—here I am thinking not predominantly about Premier League or Championship clubs but about clubs in League Two and the National League, which are the smaller and less well-off clubs—will be to hike ticket prices to offset these new and increased costs. It is clear that we need this assessment of the impact of the regulator’s actions on ticket prices. If Parliament is to give its assent and create this regulator, I think it owes it to fans to make sure that the impact of that cost is properly accounted for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friend Lord Ranger and others have reflected on the fact that fans have very high expectations of this Bill and this regulator. They hope that the Bill, including the provisions in Schedule 4, will allow them to benefit from lower ticket prices, but I fear that the reverse is likely to be the case—higher costs leading to higher ticket prices for fans. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ranger will pursue his point on behalf of football fans across the country.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Brady has retabled her very sensible amendments to ensure that the regulator publishes guidance, not just to its functions under Clauses 21 to 25 but to its functions under the whole Bill. The regulator needs to translate the somewhat abstract powers and duties set out in the Bill into a more detailed and cohesive explanation of the rules it will be producing to support clubs in understanding precisely what will be expected of them. If it does that clearly, that may go some way to mitigating the costs that the new regulatory regime will impose on them. My noble friend’s Amendment 25 is a very simple one, but its impact would be helpful to all clubs facing these new regulations.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, I must regretfully say that I cannot support them on the amendment they have spoken passionately about. As I set out in Committee, we worry about the propensity for mission creep here. They have very wisely chosen to put their initiative behind Amendment 13, which is the more modest of the two and reflects an Act of Parliament that has already been passed with duties under it. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 13, neither will we oppose it if she presses it to a vote.
With renewed thanks to the Minister for the government amendments in this group, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure I have many original thoughts either, although I will try to address the points raised during the debate, starting with Amendments 12 and 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank her for these amendments.
I am really comfortable with her absolute determination—as is her right—to raise environmental issues in every single way at every point of our deliberations in your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness is right that we need to limit our impact. I note that she has support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Gascoigne, demonstrating her incredible ability to forge unlikely—some might say unholy—alliances with very noble aims. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate; I am not referring to him in that sweeping statement.
The Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure that the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, that as a huge part of our national psyche, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition.
The Government expect authorities across the sport to be working together to advance environmental sustainability. However, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the regulator’s objectives or general duties. The bar for statutory intervention in any market should be very high. That is why the regulator’s focus should be on the problems that football has clearly shown itself to be unable to properly address through self-regulation.
By contrast, football has demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment. You only have to look at Forest Green Rovers as a brilliant example of a club taking action on environmental issues lower down the pyramid. At the highest level, the Premier League’s new sustainability pledge, involving a new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league, is another good example. This is only a starting point upon which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of the leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.
This Amendment would also constitute scope creep, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—something that I know noble Lords all agree we should be wary of, not least with the additional burdens it would impose on the regulator and the industry. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, seeks to bind the regulator to produce guidance on every aspect of its functions. In our view, this is disproportionate and would be a significant burden on the regulator. We are not aware of a precedent for any regulator being required to publish guidance about every single aspect of its functions. In many cases, it would be unnecessary and not relevant to clubs or competition organisers. This would involve engagement and consultation with clubs, adding significant burdens to them. The regulator will, where necessary, produce guidance in consultation with relevant stake- holders, in line with its duties and principles. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to not move her amendment.
On Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, regarding ticket prices, the annual report is clearly a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers necessary detail. It was really helpful to have his explanation of the intent of his amendment. I recognise how important ticket prices are to fans and recognise the noble Lord’s determination to raise this important issue on behalf of fans.
Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs. That is exactly why this Government have made it explicit in the Bill that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue; the annual report is not the most effective place to achieve this. The regulator may well choose to look at ticket pricing as part of the “state of the game” report. However, as it is a commercial decision, the regulator will not intervene, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly my co-signees: the very holy right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the very brave—and possibly slightly less holy—noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. Their speeches were short, powerful and to the point, which I think the whole House appreciated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that calling my amendment well intentioned was probably the nicest thing he has ever said about a Green Party person, so I am going to bank that. However, he is completely wrong, because acknowledging a commitment—which is what he said various organisations do—is not the same as actually doing it. So I would argue that this amendment is absolutely relevant. Subscribing to statements—which was another phrase the noble Lord used—does not mean doing it; I want clubs to do it. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is totally wrong; this is not otiose or unnecessary. In fact, we added this very provision to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—in Section 10. If it was relevant then, it is relevant now.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was very kind in saying that the Opposition would not oppose this amendment. I am touched by the Opposition’s kindness towards me. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I was told that the Liberal Democrats are abstaining on this, which I found quite shocking. That seems an abnegation of their concern about this issue, and I am very disappointed.
The Minister offered such kind words about my amendment, even though she said no. When she said that this Government have a complete commitment to environmental obligations, I know she was incredibly sincere. However, our views on how the Government are dealing with the environment probably differ slightly. I realise that is partly because I could be called a rabid green—I want green stuff in absolutely everything—but at the same time I think I am right, and the Government are wrong. My amendment would make it easier for clubs to do the right thing for their fans and for wider society. So we need this amendment in the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
What does the noble Baroness wish to do with Amendment 12?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The amendment was moved. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw it?
“(c) is compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008 and secures the long-term environmental sustainability of English football.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the chorus behind me for telling me what to do. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (3 Mar 2025)
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although I recognise and welcome some of the changes the Lord Chancellor has made in this Statement, they are far from sufficient in tackling the court backlog. It is of course tempting for any new Government to blame the outgoing Administration for all they possibly can. For that reason, I want to focus my remarks on what has happened since this Government took office in July last year.
On taking office, the Lord Chancellor was advised that at least 6,500 sitting days were available to tackle the growing court backlog—yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, the Lord Chancellor added only 500 sitting days, and still the backlog continued to expand. In response, the Lord Chancellor added a further 2,000 sitting days a month later, but by then the backlog had only worsened. Now, eight months after the Lord Chancellor assumed office, we learned last week that she is still rejecting available sitting days and, in a surprising admission, she conceded that the court backlog will only continue to grow. This is simply inexcusable.
The Lord Chancellor said that victims will receive quicker justice—yet victims of serious crimes such as rape are being told that their cases will not be heard until 2028. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency; it is a failure to deliver the justice that victims deserve and expect. So it is critical that we act now, before the backlog expands further. It is vital that we fully maximise our court capacity, utilising every available day and exploring every possible avenue within the judiciary to relieve pressure and create additional capacity—there of course being a distinction between system capacity and judicial capacity.
I am confident that the Minister understands the importance of this. Cutting the court backlog will undoubtedly be a difficult task. However, it is essential that we have a clear plan and timetable for when this backlog will fall. So will the Minister tell the House by what date the Government expect the backlog to fall? Will he explain exactly why the Lord Chancellor did not, or will not, take up the 2,500 additional sitting days offered by the Lady Chief Justice? I look forward to hearing a clear and positive response.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Statement describes the Government’s inheritance from the last Administration on Crown Court capacity as little short of disgraceful. It was worse than that: it was an utter disgrace. Sadly, even with the measures announced in the Statement, an utter disgrace it remains. A once great system of criminal justice, admired internationally, has sunk to a level of service that has produced unpardonable delays; decrepit courts—and not enough of them; and underpaid and demoralised staff and lawyers. Offenders are in custody on remand for unacceptable periods and prosecutions are dropped on many occasions because victims and witnesses lose heart and abandon cases, lacking the confidence that they will ever see justice. When trials eventually happen, they are bedevilled by lapse of time and witnesses’ failing recollection. Overall, the level of public trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is rightly, abysmally low.
Furthermore, the system would be even worse were it not for the tireless commitment of those who work within it, mostly underrewarded staff, lawyers and, in particular, our committed, indefatigable and independent judiciary, who struggle to keep the courts working with some semblance of order against overwhelming odds.
This Statement represents a move in the right direction. To that extent, we welcome it, but it is not enough. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor recognise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, she has acknowledged that, even with the funding and measures she has announced, the backlog will grow. She pins her hopes on more radical measures of structural reform that may or may not be proposed by the Leveson review. These will take place only when the review has reported and its recommendations have been implemented. Far more extensive measures are needed now to bring down the backlog.
There is, after all, no significant saving of resources in keeping people hanging around for long periods—often running to years—with their lives largely on hold because we cannot get cases to trial. I do not question the Government’s recognition of the seriousness of the crisis they inherited and we now face, but I do question the lack of urgency.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why is it that, at a time of catastrophic shortage of sitting days, a progressive Government, dedicated to the delivery of justice, should simply accept that the concordat process of agreeing a number of court sitting days should be a negotiation between the Government and the judiciary? The Lady Chief Justice, a judge widely admired for her level-headedness and good judgment, sought agreement to an extra 6,500 days a year. She advised the Government that that many extra days were available to address the court backlog of 73,000 cases within the system as it stands. Why have the Government not simply accepted that? Why have they not agreed to all the extra days for which she sought sanction and arranged to provide more? Those extra cases would make a significant difference.
In its report published last Wednesday 5 March, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described the MoJ as
“tinkering at the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts, without planning for long-term solutions.”
How is it that the Government have not made swifter progress with initiating a comprehensive programme of necessary repairs to our courts? Of course, the increased funding for repairs is very welcome, but why is the urgency lacking? This was a known problem way before last July’s general election. Might some of the Nightingale courts not have been retained in use to clear part of the backlog? Have the Government considered evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials?
I know that the Government are well aware of the disproportionate effect of long delays on cases of rape and serious sexual violence. Victims withdraw from prosecutions under the psychological pressure that these cases entail. The average wait for serious sexual offence cases, not from report or charge but from arrival at Crown Court to completion, is now 356 days. This is a shocking figure. Many cases wait far longer. Have the Government considered according an enhanced status to these cases because of the particular difficulties they face in order to get them on more quickly?
We agree that there is a need for long-term reform and we trust that Sir Brian Leveson’s review will make recommendations that will help restore our criminal justice system. There is much that we can do now and I invite the Minister to take back to his department an invitation to the Government to do much more, more quickly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to his current role. This is the first time I have encountered him speaking from the Dispatch Box.
The Government inherited a record and rising backlog that now stands at 73,000 cases—twice the figure of five years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is a human cost to these delays. Victims are waiting years for justice and the attrition rate in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years, from 2.9% in 2019 to 7.5% now—so I recognise the figures he quoted. This Government are funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—110,000 sitting days next year, which is 4,000 more than the last Government funded.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me a number of questions. Basically, the question was why we were not maximising the number of sitting days and taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer, as he put it, of sitting at capacity in the Crown Court system. There are two simple answers to that. One is a cash constraint—and I think we need to acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor has wider responsibilities than the courts and has to balance how the money is spent on the whole criminal justice system. We acknowledge that there are serious issues, and we have increased the number of sitting days. The second point is that it is wise to keep some headroom within the Crown Court system. We saw the benefit of that when we had the riots last year and were able to deal with them really quite quickly, in part because of the policy of keeping some headroom within the Crown Court system.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said that trials are bedevilled by delays, and he was right when he said that victims drop out of the system and there are many problems because of the many delays within our system. The noble Lord mentioned the concordat process. It is worth noting that that process has been accelerated this year; it has been resolved much earlier in the year than in many previous years, which will give more certainty to the judges when they are planning and allocating their sitting days between the various courts. That is the benefit of the system that the Lord Chancellor has introduced.
I reject the charge that we are tinkering at the edges. The fundamental point, which I think the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Cameron, acknowledged, is that ever-increasing sitting days will not solve the problem. We need more radical reforms, and we are looking to Sir Brian Leveson to present reforms. A number of things are being constantly talked about in the papers. We do not know exactly what he is going to recommend, but we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a much more radical change in how we deal with trials in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts. We have obviously gone some way within the magistrates’ courts by doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months—but, again, that is a marginal benefit, and there need to be other changes. We are looking forward to Sir Brian’s recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke about repairs to the courts. As I think he acknowledged, there has been an increase in court maintenance, up to £148 million from £120 million—but of course we are trying to catch up on many years of underinvesting in our court estate. I have personally seen a number of courts that are in dire need of emergency maintenance. I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made, but we are taking steps in the right direction to try to increase the quality of our court estate—and there are a number of Nightingale courts still operating, partly for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made another point about the sexual offences or RASSO cases, and how people are waiting far too long. Some courts, including Bristol Crown Court, I believe, are using a different approach—I hesitate to use the word “specialist”—to how they bring on RASSO-related cases. I believe that a couple of other Crown Courts are looking at this as well. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made about the importance of doing this—otherwise, you will get a higher victim drop-out, which is not in the interests of justice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, before abolishing any element of trial by jury, does the Minister accept that the Government should prioritise improving the effectiveness of the Crown Court by swift progress of cases and by appointing a cadre of procedure judges to ensure that the number of hearings per case is reduced dramatically, thereby saving a great deal of time?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me notice of that question. I absolutely recognise the point on the importance of cases coming on in time. One hears far too many stories of cases having to be abandoned, often because of poor administration of the case. We have a number of pilot courts—I think it is about 10—where we are introducing case co-ordinators. They are people whose only job is to go over the cases to make sure that all the different elements are in place and to make sure that the case gets on. I realise that that is not exactly the point that the noble Lord made, but it is acknowledging the importance of making sure that these cases get on and are not abandoned for any reason.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have a couple of questions. First, it is very clear that if you get a backlog in the system, people will plead not guilty. That was my experience with the magistrates’ court in Gloucestershire in 2006, and I do not believe that anything has changed. Therefore, my first question is: what are the Government’s projections, going forward over the next 12 months, as to the likely increase in those awaiting trial? The real problem is that if you do not clear the backlog, it makes it worse because it is always tempting to put off facing reality; it just gets worse and worse.
Secondly, in a court system time is always lost during the day. One problem that we have relates to prisons and the difficulty of bringing prisoners to the courts on time. What is being done to ensure that is improved? I remember this being a problem more than 20 years ago, and it really required extraordinarily tough contract management. I took some of the job on myself, as the Ministry of Justice did not seem capable of doing it. What is being done to manage the contracts so that they are managed as a commercial contract should be managed, and there are penalties or other stern action taken if a prisoner is late? I hope that the contracts are tough enough to ensure that.
In connection with prisons, when I chaired the Commission on Justice in Wales, it was obvious that there was a problem in funding the criminal justice system. I do not think that there can be any real doubt that the financial problems arise from the overall fiscal constraints, which I completely understand, on what money is available for justice—but you are driven to the conclusion that if the Exchequer will not provide more money, the only place it can come from is reducing the prison population. When are we going to find out not how we avoid the crisis that will come in the early part of next year but what is being fundamentally done to reassess our policy of sending people to prison for a very long time? That, I believe, is at the heart of the problem.
The Lord Chancellor spoke very eloquently—and I commend her on this—of dealing with the question of an intermediate court, but the much more difficult political question is dealing with the sentiment that was impressed on us some years ago that “prison works”. I do not believe that is true, but it works to undermine all the rest of the justice system by there not being enough money for paying lawyers to do their job properly and funding the administration of justice.
I am sorry—I took my second question in two parts. I commend the Lord Chancellor on what she has done, but there are other problems to which we need to face up.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the concluding sentence of the noble and learned Lord—there are indeed other problems which we need to face up to, and reducing the prison population is one of the most fundamental of them. In many ways, that problem goes hand in hand with the problem of the Crown Court backlog. The noble and learned Lord will know that my noble friend Lord Timpson went to Spain to see their prison system, and my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor went to Texas, looking constructively at other ways of dealing with these issues. Of course, as he said, reoffending rates are crucial in trying to reduce the backlog and there will be legislation on this coming forward in due course.
The noble and learned Lord opened by talking about the incentive to plead not guilty because of the lengthy backlogs. That is undoubtedly true; I have heard that point made many times. It is an added incentive for us to try to reduce the backlogs. There will be a number of benefits to this, and the noble and learned Lord has pointed to one in particular.
Regarding intermediate courts or giving magistrates more sentencing powers, it is my understanding that magistrates’ courts work about five times more quickly than Crown Courts. I do not know what Sir Brian is going to recommend, but, if more work could be done within magistrates’ courts, that would help as well.
The noble and learned Lord spoke about bringing prisoners to court in a timely way. I of course agree with that point. The last mini-campaign I did when I was still a sitting magistrate was to try to allow prison vans in London to use the emergency service lanes to get people to court. It was a minor battle I had with the Mayor of London and I am afraid that I lost it. Nevertheless, the point he makes is a good one. It is very important that everybody gets to court on time, so that the whole process can be properly managed, which is of benefit to everybody involved in it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question. Has the Ministry of Justice got a really tough contract manager? All of one’s commercial experience shows that, if you contract out a service, you have to be tough in the performance of it. I need not raise the problems that have arisen. In the past, contract delivery companies did not have a good record, if one might say this.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
What I can say is that I have been in meetings with the Permanent Secretary and the Lord Chancellor and I would not like to be on the wrong side of them when they are talking directly to contractors—which they do every now and again.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, following the points made by the noble and learned Lord, does the Minister agree that it is about not only contract management but the design of the contract from the very beginning, so there can be break clauses or a contract may be terminated if it is not properly performed? Also, following the noble and learned Lord’s comments, does the Minister agree that what will be far more helpful to justice proceeding more speedily is to suggest not that pre-sentence reports are a bad thing but that well-designed pre-sentence reports can assist in the appropriate sentences being applied as part of the attempt to reduce reoffending?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, I agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. The aspiration is to move towards a greater proportion of offenders having pre-sentence reports before they are sentenced. To me, that seems an obvious state of affairs. So, I agree with the point that the noble Baroness made on that. Regarding the contracts, I understand that they do have break clauses and can be terminated: that is a possibility within current contracts, as far as I understand it.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Mar 2025)
21:52 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Lord Moynihan
“(f) its duties under section (Protection against trade disputes).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I shall address Amendments 16 and 26, standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In moving this amendment, let me set out a number of legal issues that have been raised outside this House. To set them in context, what we are talking about tonight is the importance of the Premier League. It is watched by 1.9 billion people across 189 countries. It is the most successful domestic league in the world. Its financial support flows down through the football pyramid. It supports £8 billion in gross value added to the economy. It contributes more than £4 billion annually to the Exchequer and supports more than 90,000 jobs. The Championship, which it strongly supports, is the sixth most successful league in Europe. The issues which are central to this amendment reflect the importance of the Premier League, which generates more revenue internationally than domestically. It has attracted substantial foreign investment over recent years and operates within a complex international regulatory framework governed by UEFA, FIFA and numerous international trade and investment arrangements to which the UK is a party—though the FA will no longer play a part.
The establishment of the IFR introduces unique risks of potential legal dispute with international investors and potential complications regarding the UK’s compliance with international obligations. Two significant issues arise. The first is the impact on foreign investors: many Premier League clubs have significant foreign investment, relying on regulatory stability, property rights protections and non-discriminatory treatment. The second is trade agreement compliance: the UK has international obligations, including investment protections within trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties requiring fair and equitable treatment, transparency and non-discrimination towards foreign investors. Non-compliance could trigger diplomatic repercussions and costly arbitration claims.
The key legal risks which exist, are, I believe, threefold. The first, which we will come to discuss on a future occasion, arises from the assiduous work of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The mechanism of the backstop as it is currently structured—and I will not go into it this evening except in the context of my amendment, to look at its legal implications—allows the regulator to impose financial redistribution without clear or predefined limits, effectively giving it the power to divert private commercial revenues arbitrarily. Such intervention poses a significant risk of constituting what lawyers call indirect expropriation, where regulatory action substantially diminishes the economic value of investments without fair compensation. Foreign investors protected by bilateral investment treaties have reasonable expectations of regulatory stability and fairness. An unlimited or unpredictable redistribution power would likely trigger claims under international investment treaties, arguing violation of their rights to fair and equitable treatment and protection from uncompensated expropriation.
Secondly, as we have discussed earlier this evening, there are risks from new ownership rules retrospectively applied. The Bill proposes potentially retrospective and uncertain changes to the owners’ and directors’ test. These new, undefined ownership criteria could retrospectively affect existing owners, potentially forcing divestment of clubs by foreign investors based on criteria not in place at the time of investment. Such retrospective application could breach fundamental legal principles of fairness, stability and investor protection. It could be interpreted as discriminatory and arbitrary treatment under international investment law, leading to significant litigation risk and investor state arbitration claims, damaging the UK’s international credibility as a reliable investment destination.
Thirdly, there are the risks of discrimination. Linked to the points I have just made, regulatory actions perceived as disproportionately targeting foreign-owned clubs, particularly through retrospective regulatory criteria, risk breaching international obligations of non-discrimination between national treatment and most favoured nation treatment. Investors could legitimately claim discriminatory treatment, triggering significant diplomatic and legal disputes.
If there is validity in law to these concerns, my amendment is carefully designed to seek to mitigate them. It explicitly requires the football regulator to comply fully with the UK’s international trade and investment obligations, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation or trade disputes. It mandates non-discriminatory and proportionate regulatory interventions, ensuring predictability and stability for international investors. Thirdly, in my second amendment before your Lordships this evening, early consultation between the football regulator, HM Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to proactively manage compliance with international obligations will avoid regulatory paralysis.
Embedding these protective measures in this Bill, which I see as being as helpful as possible to the Government on this front, clarifies the regulatory framework up front. It pre-empts costly disputes and ensures that the regulator aligns clearly with the UK’s international economic and diplomatic interests from the outset. It is, therefore, a helpful amendment. It is intended to be pragmatic and is necessary for addressing significant international and domestic risks comprehensively. It respects property rights, ensures regulatory proportionality and maintains international investor confidence, which is critical in the Premier League to ensure growth. It thus safeguards the UK’s attractiveness and reputation as the premier destination for global football capital. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his vital and very sensible amendments in this group. As he has touched on, there could be some serious unintended consequences unless we introduce his amendments to the Bill. The Premier League, as we have said many times, is the most successful football league in the world. One of the major reasons for that is its openness to global investment and its attractiveness for that. Foreign investors have played a transformational role in modernising clubs, developing world-class infrastructure and cementing English football to an elite global brand. They have helped to create the most competitive and commercially successful football league in the world.
Yet without my noble friend’s amendment, the Government will be introducing a regulatory framework that could unfairly target foreign-owned clubs, placing them at a disadvantage compared with those owned by UK investors. That is not fair, not necessary and not in the best interests of English football. I am sure that this is not intended by the regulator, but it could be one of those unintended consequences as to where some of those decisions might fall. The amendment asking for Treasury advice, for want of a better word, ensures that the IFR is not sleepwalking into some of these difficulties, which I hope will be seen as very sensible and helpful in all of this. As my noble friend mentioned, most important is that any investor has a clear set of rules that they can rely on, and which are guaranteed and completely transparent.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was briefer than I had anticipated; I had intended putting this point to him. We have had a lot of discussion about the intervention of UEFA in terms of the regulator not being able to take into account UK government foreign policies and trade policies, following that provision having been withdrawn from the Bill. How does that differ from Amendment 26, which expects international trade agreements to come within the consideration of the regulator? Surely the two are the same. In either case, they are getting into the realms of government policy, which UEFA has made it quite clear it is unhappy about.
Lord Markham (Con)
This amendment is trying to avoid that and do it the other way around. Our trade agreements are in place already and well-known. We are asking the football regulator to do many things, but I would not expect it to know, because of the large levels of foreign ownership, how its decisions might disproportionately affect some segments versus other segments and how that could trip over some of the World Trade Organization agreements or other such bodies. That is what we are trying to protect against. Hopefully, it is not even relevant, but again it is trying to ensure that we do not sleepwalk into something that is thoroughly unintended. This is a simple precautionary amendment to avoid such unintended consequences.
So, as I say, we must all recognise that our existing trade agreements are not just beneficial but vital for our future growth. The Government have repeatedly said, quite rightly, that growth is their number one mission. All we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure that we do not inadvertently trip up on one of those and the regulator has one of those unintended consequences, because clearly none of us wants to see that happen.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his amendments. There is much on which we agree, but, unfortunately, I cannot agree that these amendments in this group are required. Good investment, which comes in many forms, has helped make English football the global success it is today, and this Government are absolutely committed to continuing that. Of course, this regulator will not discriminate against foreign investors or act unfairly against anyone else—nothing in this Bill allows it to do so. This amendment is not needed to prevent that. Not only is it unnecessary but, as noble Lords will appreciate, it would be highly unusual to bring a broad range of treaty obligations directly into our domestic law in such a sweeping way.
This Government take our international obligations very seriously and the Bill complies with our treaty commitments. But, if foreign investors have concerns about the regulator’s decisions, there are mechanisms within our treaties to allow them to raise these concerns at the international level and, if necessary, to bring disputes. That is the appropriate forum, not our domestic courts. Let me be clear once more: we are confident that the Bill complies with our international obligations. Nothing in it requires or even allows the regulator to make discriminatory or unfair decisions.
Finally, I was slightly surprised to see the last part of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have carefully ensured the regulator’s independence from government and ensured that UEFA is content with the Bill as drafted, so I was not clear why the noble Lord wants to require the regulator to consult the Treasury and DBT on a wide range of occasions and risk undermining the regulator’s independence. This would be concerning, especially given how much time the noble Lord has spent discussing UEFA and FIFA throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, and I am sure the risk would be highly concerning for many others in this House. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend from the Front Bench and the Minister for their contributions, and for the intervention, although I regret that I was not in a position to answer it, because I had already attempted to set the scene before the House managed to resume in full.
My amendment was not about UEFA. The purpose of the amendments this evening was about explicit statutory acknowledgement to reinforce clarity, reduce the legal uncertainties and prevent inadvertent breaches, demonstrating transparency, foresight and collaboration between the relevant government departments. It was to simplify what I anticipate will be, potentially, a legal minefield and to make sure that, if we did that in the legislation, we would avoid many of the issues that were going to, potentially, follow as a result of this legislation.
In parentheses, one of the problems that will follow comes from the intervention from the noble Lord: namely, UEFA is now out of this loop. UEFA is only a stepping stone: the running of football in the United Kingdom is through its member, the FA, and the FA, as we have debated and concluded within the House this evening, has no role within the financial regulation of football in this country. That is the first time that has happened anywhere in Europe. In Spain, it is fully at the heart of the financial regulation of that country, and indeed was party to working with government in order to follow a model that the Premier League has instituted here in the United Kingdom.
It is a dangerous path to move away from the autonomy of world sport. I will not go into this again, but I am trying to do a service to the noble Lord who has intervened this evening, because I know he has been an assiduous attender in Committee. It is a dangerous path: if you legislate to run sport and have financial management of sport and you ignore in practice the role of the governing body, which is the FA, you set up potential legal complexities that would otherwise not arise. That is why I have put forward these proposals: simply to give additional protection to those legal challenges that could arise as a result of this legislation and to move the amendments before the House.
Baroness Twycross
“(i) persons on whom it may impose requirements or restrictions, namely clubs, owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs, and competition organisers, and(ii) other persons who may be affected by its decisions, including players and fans;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the regulatory principle in clause 8(b) so that the IFR should co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with persons who may be affected by its decisions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This group contains a number of government amendments to the regulatory principles. I am grateful to noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for the engagement we have had over the past few weeks both in Committee and in meetings. It has been helpful.
First, on Amendment 17, we all know that football without fans is nothing. It has always been the intention that the regulator would engage with fans and any others impacted by the regulator’s decisions, where they are relevant. It is vital to the Government that the essential value of players and fans to English football is demonstrated both in the legislation and the regulator’s engagement. I thank my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Watson of Invergowrie for their engagement in ensuring that that value is reflected in the legislation, as well as my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support for this amendment. This amendment will clarify that intent and make it explicit in the Bill. It will both reflect the essential nature of players and fans to English football and ensure that the regulator is directed to engage with both groups.
Turning to Amendments 18 and 19 concerning light- touch regulation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling his amendment and for his extensive discussion of this issue with me and officials. We agree wholeheartedly that light-touch regulation should be the aim of the regulator. It should have a bias—against unnecessary intervention, against excessive burdens on the industry, towards co-operation and engagement before intervention, and towards proportionate interventions that deliver real benefits. That is why I have tabled Amendment 18 to clarify the intention that the regulatory regime should be light-touch.
We carefully considered the best way to deliver this aim, including whether to use the term “light-touch” in the Bill. We believe the regulatory principles should be as clear and specific as possible. Each time the regulator acts, it should be clear whether it has met the Bill’s requirements; that is, whether it has had regard to the principles. That is why our new principle in Amendment 18 centres around a test of necessity and whether the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. These, like the existing Clause 8(c) test of proportionality, reflect concepts that are well understood in public law and will give clubs, leagues and the regulator appropriate legal certainty.
“Light-touch”, by contrast, is not typical legislative drafting. That could make it difficult for both regulator and regulated to be 100% certain of their legal positions. As debates in Committee made clear, one person’s “light-touch” regulation is another’s “overreach”. Allowing a margin of discretion is a less novel concept, but we none the less have concerns about its legal certainty.
In our view, the wording “necessity”, “consideration of alternatives” and “proportionality” are clear tests that will let both regulator and regulated act with confidence. That is what our regulatory principles and government Amendment 18 deliver. I can assure the House that the principles in Clause 8, including our Amendment 18, enshrine a light-touch approach in law.
Finally, on government Amendment 20, this minor drafting change seeks to clarify the regulator’s responsibility under this regulatory principle. Although it will not materially change the effect of the principle, an obligation for a public body to have “regard to” is well precedented and understood by the industry.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will not move his amendment. I beg to move government Amendment 17.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words on Amendment 17 just moved by my noble friend the Minister. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to ensure that the players appeared in the Bill, as originally they did not.
I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend has listened to the representations, not just by me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady but by the Professional Footballers’ Association and others, who have made the very reasonable case that, with the insertion of a reference to players as a group in this section, the regulator is expected to,
“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”
with players. In effect, they become statutory consultees of the IFR, which is only appropriate because there is of course no football without the players. I very much welcome the wording that the Minister has come forward with; it meets my concerns and those of others.
The other part of this is the fans. I also put forward an amendment in Committee proposing that the fans should be defined in some way. I have had discussions with my noble friend the Minister. It was always going to be difficult. I assume that it will soon become the job of the regulator to define what a fan is. I still hold to the belief that you need to have some address for a fan if you are going to consult them. That is why I proposed in Committee that season ticket holders should be the best way of deciding who the fans are for consultation purposes, but I accept that it has not been possible to reach any kind of consensus on that.
I welcome the wording in this amendment. Again, I commend my noble friend and the Government on listening to representations and coming up with wording as a result.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will not add very much to what my noble friend has already said about the importance and value of having players and fans recognised in the consultation process, except to say that it is probably the most important part.
I was worried at the outset of the legislation—with the Bill that the party currently in opposition put in place before the election—that there was absolutely no reference to players or fans. They are an essential part. Without them, where would the game be? We might not be able to define what fans are, but they are many things, in many different ways and places. We sort of know what they are without being able to define them.
My noble friend Lady Taylor and I also signed up to Amendment 18, because I think it is important that there is a clear statement in the legislation to the effect that the best way forward is usually without recourse to excessive bureaucracy and regulation. If the IFR can find a way to do things that does not have to resort to that, then all for the good. For that reason, while I am encouraged by the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and it certainly touches on a rather important point, I think the Government have matched that point with their amendment. I am not sure it is easy to define “light-touch”—no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will tell me that it is—but it is not a term that is commonly used in legislation, certainly not regulatory legislation.
I am pleased that this issue is being properly surfaced, and I am delighted that the Government have responded to it in a really positive way. I hope that both fans and players will be pleased to see that they have been written into this legislation.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister on that point about engagement with fans. As I alluded to before the dinner break, sometimes those fans are in the tens of thousands. Can she share with us how the regulator will engage with those fans? If the regulator will refer to fan representatives, who would those representatives be on a case-by-case basis or club-by-club basis?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 18, because it addresses in a very clear manner one of the main concerns which was expressed across the House in Committee. The concern was that the new regulator should operate with a light touch. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it is not a phrase that is used in legislation, but we all know what it means—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will come back to the noble Lord in a moment.
The concern that was expressed repeatedly in Committee was that the regulator is operating in the context of a highly successful business that brings billions of pounds of revenue into this country every year and provides enormous amounts of pleasure and excitement to billions of people across the world—although the pleasure is not experienced at the Emirates Stadium if you are watching Arsenal on every occasion you attend a home match. Furthermore, in recent months this Government have expressed in other contexts a concern that regulators should not be a barrier to growth. There is, then, a vital need to put in this Bill a clause that requires the regulator to have regard to the need to exercise the very extensive powers that have been conferred only if it is really necessary to do so.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because earlier this afternoon, in an earlier group, he expressed concern about light-touch regulation. He asked whether it really means “being asleep at the wheel”—that was his phrase—or acting only when a disaster occurs. I do not understand light-touch regulation to mean anything of the sort. It means, in the present context of a highly successful industry, being aware of the equal or greater danger of overregulation which could damage this very successful industry. There is—to use a sporting metaphor, which I hope is appropriate—a real danger of own goals by the regulator wherever it comes on to the field of play.
The Minister was sympathetic to this concern in Committee, and she undertook to go away with her officials to consider this important point. I am genuinely grateful to her and the Bill team for the amount of time they have spent discussing this issue with me and other Lords. I am very pleased that she has tabled Amendment 18, which adds this new regulatory principle to Clause 8. Under the amendment, a priority would be given in the Bill so that the regulator must
“have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 18 will make a considerable improvement to the Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for having listened and acted on this important topic.
The Minister today confirmed that the purpose of Amendment 18 is to clarify the intention for this regulatory regime. There are different views about that across the House, but she has clarified that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regime will be implemented and exercised with a light touch. I think that we all understand what that means, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is not appropriate or necessary to include that phrase in the Bill.
In the light of what the Government have brought forward and what the Minister has said, I do not intend to press my Amendment 19—although I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for adding their support to it.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I too will comment a little on the point about light-touch regulation. Before I do, earlier today—prompted, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—the Minister offered her good wishes to Newcastle in the Carabao Cup final at the weekend. I wondered whether she would also be willing to offer her best wishes to Liverpool at the weekend, with the due impartiality that is merited. We need a little help tonight, because we are 1-0 down at half time to PSG, so she might like to send her immediate good wishes before it is too late for that game.
Needless to say—I have said this before—I truly support the regulation of English football, and I will not repeat what I have said in earlier debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, the Government’s amendment is extremely helpful. He intends not to press his own amendment, but I did not see anything wrong with underlining the point with the addition of “light-touch”.
Throughout my career, I experienced the public benefits of effective regulation in broadcasting. However, we know that not all regulation has proved successful in the UK or in other countries, and we must learn from both the successes and the lack of success. As the Chancellor said just a month ago, our economy has “suffered” due to “stifling and unpredictable regulation”. Overregulation bequeathed us the absurdly expensive and long-delayed HS2. On the other hand, under- regulation brings us sewage flowing freely into Lake Windermere, so we have to get the right kind of regulation.
These amendments should oblige the regulator to practise considered and proportionate regulation, focusing on what really matters—and more than one thing really matters, as has come out again and again in this debate. Above all, effective regulation here means ensuring that English football clubs should be well and prudently managed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment 17, which I signed. It says that players and fans should be regarded. When discussing professional sport, the two key elements are: somebody to play and somebody to watch. Both should be recognised within the structure of this legislation as important.
With the huge amount of appetite for football, players are clearly under pressure of being overplayed. How they should be looked after is an important factor that all sports are dealing with. I encourage the regulator, when it comes out, to take a serious look at this, as well as the rights of fans. We had great fun debating which diverse group should be consulted. Well, let somebody else figure it out—we could not.
When it comes to light touch, I will break a habit of mine and read out something from the EFL which I received, I think, yesterday:
“The EFL does not support the enshrining of ‘light touch’ as a regulatory principle in the Bill … Light touch is an extremely subjective term that the IFR will struggle to meaningfully define as it goes about its activities … It also risks limiting the effectiveness of Regulators once it is operational, which instead should have the ability to determine what is the ‘right touch’”—
dozens of other expressions are available—
“to deal with any situation it is required to address”.
Hiding behind a mantra is never a good idea. What the Government have here is quantifiable at the very least, so I say yes to that. I hope that we can go forward, because the minute you get something like “It has to be light touch”, you will get it wrong. It has to be effective. I hope the Government and the regulator enshrine effectiveness from this point on; it does not matter if it is light or heavy, it matters if it works.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support the Government’s Amendment 18, which introduces a regulatory principle focused on necessity, proportionality and minimising regulatory burden. The Government deserve credit for this amendment. It is an attempt to recognise the concerns, expressed across the House during Committee, that this Bill outlines an overly complex and intrusive regulatory framework for football.
Indeed, I recall that the Government expressly ruled out a light-touch “watchdog” option in their impact assessment, in justifying the need for a more interventionist approach. We should bear in mind that this Bill overall is not easily described as “light touch”, but the Government’s amendment is an attempt to clarify Ministers’ intentions, which I believe are for a light-touch framework. We should note the obvious point that it is not an attempt to change the overall licensing framework, existing regulatory model, extensive range of powers, or broad suite of sanctions. Nevertheless, short of a wholesale change of approach and a much slimmer Bill, the tension this principle introduces is how the regulator exercises those powers, so it is welcome.
But I, for one, would like the Government to go further, both in the Bill and in guidance and their engagement with the shadow regulator. That is why I supported my noble friend Lord Pannick’s additional amendment detailing light touch, which I know he has now not moved. What I would like to suggest today is that Ministers enhance their amendment further by explicitly enabling different types of intervention approaches for different leagues, guiding towards greater reliance on leagues where appropriate.
The football pyramid is diverse, with varying risk profiles and governance capabilities. What is appropriate for Maidenhead United in the National League is very unlikely to be appropriate for Manchester United. The Premier League, for instance, has developed robust governance and regulatory structures over many years. It has built financial monitoring systems that effectively maintain competitive balance while ensuring club sustainability. I have not heard a single Minister or Peer in this House express any concern over the sustainability of Premier League clubs.
Steering the regulator more explicitly to tailor its approach to intervening based on a league’s governance standards, rulebooks and enforcement practices would be a very sensible approach. It would ensure regulatory resources target genuine areas of risk in the pyramid and would really help to bring about what I would describe as a “right-touch” regime—light touch where effective systems already operate, but more interventionist where they do not. I think this could deliver a more efficient model, as well as create positive incentives for leagues to strengthen their own governance frameworks.
Perhaps when the Minister responds, she could commit to working with me, the football authorities and the shadow regulator to encourage this common-sense approach, recognising the practical benefits that would be realised by working more closely with the leagues, by acknowledging the natural differences within our diverse football pyramid, and by steering the regulator to adopt a targeted, risk-based approach.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Brady about the importance of a light-touch approach: not just the light touch in the way we do things today but the light touch in how we might innovate and take our game forward in the future. My wife and I spent Christmas in Oman, when the Gulf states were having their own little world cup. The key point there was how they are innovating, building a nation through football, breaking down barriers and changing the way things are done in football.
More of the same will not be the recipe for success for the English game as we look forward. I want to illustrate this with a story. Earlier this evening, I explained that I was a shareholder of Norwich City Football Club. About 30 years ago, the club auditors told us that a certain Alan Sugar—a Member of your Lordships’ House—had decided to move his players from the profit and loss and on to the balance sheet. It was the first time this had ever happened. At that moment, in the blink of an eye, English football changed.
What our noble friend did was turn a series of cottage industries—clubs that were grounded in local communities—into investable propositions. Whether he appreciated it at the time or not, it was that stroke of the pen that put British football clubs on the path to greatness. Overnight, football became better capitalised, becoming a magnet for investment and success. People say that Sky made the difference, but the truth is that it was our noble friend who made football so investible in the first place.
Can you imagine how an overbearing regulator might have reacted if this astonishingly innovative but unprecedented accounting proposal to move players from the P and L to the balance sheet had been made? We need this light touch. This was a huge innovation. Would it have happened if this regulator had been overbearing? Of course not. I have always found it strange that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has not been publicly recognised for what he did. Viewing his innovation through the lens of history has transformed the prospects of English football.
My purpose in telling this story is that the regulator must continue to be flexible and to adapt to the future as it can be—not just as it is today. The principle of the light touch is essential for us to maintain the leadership of English football at the forefront of our industry, being flexible and imaginative. Nobody owes us our place in history. We have to keep moving forward to survive. If we are overly fossilised in the system as it is today, we risk falling behind. So I am very focused on and supportive of a light-touch approach and I am pleased that it is on the amendments in front of us.
Lord Markham (Con)
I start by not thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his update on the score, because I am hoping to catch the highlights at the end. So I hope that, when he speaks further on his amendments, we will have no further updates; that is a small plea.
On a more serious matter, I too add my thanks to the Minister for listening and bringing forward this series of amendments. They cover the sentiment of what I think we all agree the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others were trying to do with their light touch. I must admit that I am particularly taken by the points made by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Fuller around a variable-touch model. We will move on to talk on day two about some of the other things. There was a big consensus around the House on trying to promote independent and non-exec directors on the boards of these clubs. Again, this is something that will come up later.
What we want more than anything is well-run clubs and a system in which, if a club is well run and has independent non-exec directors who are making sure it is run in a good manner, we really do have a light-touch model. At the same time, we should have flexibility. If there are greater concerns, there should be a heavier touch. Again, we have precedent for this. We have so-called special measures in schools and situations such as those.
I thank the Minister for recognising that sentiment about a light touch and bringing it forward. As the Bill goes through the Lords, I would ask her to consider whether we can bring a variable touch so that there is not just a one-size-fits-all approach and that, if clubs show that they are well run and reputable, they will not need the same level of scrutiny and the same burdens placed on them as those that are in more difficulties. With that, I welcome these amendments and I wish to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the idea of a variable-touch model.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this group and the discussion we have had reflect the value of the style of debate that we have in your Lordships’ House. I welcome the opportunity for us to work with noble Lords from across the House to refine the Bill. We thought the Bill was good when the previous Government had it; we thought our version was very slightly better; and we have the possibility of sending an even better version to be considered in the other place.
In starting my response to the comments made during this short debate, and with appropriate and due impartiality, I am very happy to pass on my best wishes to Liverpool FC—I will not comment on the score. Whichever team anyone supports, I think all noble Lords can agree that without players we would have no game. On that basis alone, it is right that they are included. I thank the noble Lords and my noble friends who have signed the Government’s amendment on that, and who took time to talk us through where it should sit within the Bill.
A lot of the discussion relates to definitions—whether about a light touch and what that means, or about fans and who they are. I want to say a little more about fans. The Government do not see themselves as the arbitrator of who counts as a football fan. That is something that fans and clubs themselves are in the best position to understand and discern. The makeup of a fan base differs from club to club; this diversity is part of the reason why the English football pyramid is so special. This is why the Government have introduced this legislation to protect English football by making it more sustainable and to help put fans back at the centre of their clubs, amplifying their voices on the issues that matter to them.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, about how the regulator will engage with fans, it will do so on a case-by-case basis. I would be happy to arrange for the noble Lord to speak to the shadow regulator team to provide him with more information about how it might do that. The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how to best consult fans. This will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to regularly meet and consult this group on key strategic matters and supporter interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked the key question about whether the regulator will have to ask itself whether intervention will address some substantial mischief, is likely to achieve some substantial benefit and is required because a similar outcome could not be achieved by a less burdensome means. That is our understanding. If that is the noble Lord’s understanding of where we are going with this amendment, that understanding is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, spoke about the risk of both underregulation and overregulation. This is about balance; we have added a new regulatory principle to achieve this aim, but we still think this will mean that the regulator will be effective. This is key, as both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear. The first part of this new principle of considering
“whether the requirement or restriction is necessary”
directs the regulator towards a light-touch approach to intervention as a whole, acting only where it needs to. I do not think we are a million miles away from where the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, thinks we should be, and I am happy to meet with her again to talk this through a bit further should she find that helpful.
The second part of the new principle ensures that any intervention that is considered necessary is as light-touch as possible by directing the regulator towards the least burdensome mechanism available in the specific circumstances of the outcome sought. Amendment 18 facilitates the regulator to take a different approach to clubs, alongside the proportionality principle, to ensure that each action taken by the regulator is the least burdensome it can be. We have not chosen to call that light-touch in the regulation, but it is intended to be light-touch. With that, I commend Amendment 17 to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
This is where it could go to VAR.
Amendment 18
Baroness Twycross
“(ba) it should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a regulatory principle that the IFR should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether it is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to the regulatory principle in clause 8(d).
Lord Birt
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 21 and 22 are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I strongly support the notion of a “state of the game” report, above all to encourage an evidenced and sophisticated dialogue between the leagues about fund flow, either in direct negotiation or as part of the mediation process if the backstop is triggered. But I will make three points.
First, the Bill currently states that the report should include
“information about any other matters relating to the state of English football”.
One highly critical matter, which has come up more than once today, is the global position of the English game. The Premier League, as was said a moment ago, is the most successful sporting league of any kind in the whole world, its global broadcasting revenues now surpassing those raised domestically. We propose that the “state of the game” report should capture the position of the Premier League in relation to other major European leagues—the purpose of our Amendment 21.
Secondly, producing the first draft of the “state of the game” report should not take, as the Bill suggests, up to 18 months. Football is an incredibly data-rich activity, as I have learned over these last few months, with enormous pools of relevant publicly available information at home and abroad. Six months to produce the report should be quite sufficient.
Thirdly, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I will argue next Monday that a well-evidenced “state of the game” report should be the first step in a redesigned backstop process. But there is a problem. The Bill indicates that, after the first “state of the game” report is complete, future reports will be produced on a five-year cycle. We cannot be certain at what point in the five-year cycle the backstop might be triggered—this is all quite technical. Hence, our Amendment 22 suggests that, if the backstop is triggered and more than two years have passed since the last report, the “state of the game” report should be refreshed and updated before the backstop mediation process begins.
I do not plan to test the opinion of the House, but we tabled these amendments in the hope that the Government will continue to refine the Bill, as they have been doing, as they take their next steps. We hope they will consider these points. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given the late hour, I will speak briefly in support of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, quite rightly said, the value of the global rights is now greater than the value of the domestic rights. Of course, it is the rights money that affords the best players in the world. We have put out this stat before: the Premier League has 44% of the best players in the world, which makes it the most exciting, which creates a virtuous circle and grows the rights. It is entirely proper that the global appeal should be recognised in the “state of the game” report. We wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his amendment. I am grateful for the huge amount of time and effort that the noble Lord has put into considering how we could all further improve this legislation. I also thank him for the amount of time he has given to discussing it with my officials and me over many weeks.
This amendment would see the regulator having to provide an overview of English football’s global appeal in the “state of the game” report. The report is focused on the issues affecting English football so far as relevant to the exercise of the regulator’s functions. The issue that this amendment intends to capture will likely already be captured in the “state of the game” report, as it could impact the regulator’s objectives and duties. We have purposely left the required content of the “state of the game” report broadly to the regulator’s discretion to ensure flexibility and independence. It would not be possible to list every issue worth including, as the list would be too long and doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to prioritise issues and to adjust them over time.
Amendment 22, requiring an updated “state of the game” report if the backstop is triggered, could place a significant burden on the regulator, and might slow the process down significantly. In our view, three months would definitely not be long enough to update a review of English football, given the breadth and depth of relevant issues it must cover. The regulator has to identify the analysis needed, request it from parties, let them respond, analyse it and consult on findings before publishing.
We also have to consider the significant burdens this amendment would place on the regulator, but particularly on smaller clubs. Furthermore, an updated “state of the game” report would be required solely if an application to trigger the backstop was put forward, regardless of whether that application was accepted. Ultimately, a three-month delay in the backstop process, with the burden on both the regulator and the industry to engage with a rushed updated review, would likely be disproportionate to the benefits. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
When the backstop first has to happen, the “state of the game” report is critical as part of the process. Is the noble Baroness now saying that for any future triggering of the backstop, the “state of the game” report is not part of that process? We thought she had said that it was always part of the triggering process. I may have completely misunderstood, so if the noble Baroness could clarify that, it would be really helpful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The issue is whether there would automatically be a “state of the game” report simply because of a request to trigger the process. Once a “state of the game” report is in existence, it may or may not be necessary for it to be updated if somebody triggers the process. In our view, the automatic triggering of an updating of the “state of the game” report is disproportionate. There would already be a report in place. We absolutely intend for a “state of the game” report to be in place before an initial process is triggered. Clearly, it would have to be written within the relevant timeframe in the legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I suggest to the Minister that five years is an awfully long time between “state of the game” reports? That may be the defect here. The game can and does change immeasurably within a period of five years. Perhaps the Bill team and the Minister could consider, when the Bill goes to the other place, whether it might be more appropriate to have a more regular update on the “state of the game” report, perhaps every three years.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will take that point away and return to this issue with noble Lords. My view is that it does not necessarily need to be more frequent, but we can discuss that further.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We on these Benches welcome the government amendment that makes it five years, so that the “state of the game” report is more aligned with the parliamentary timetable. We may touch on this when we speak to the later group from the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
Lord Birt (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank her, as others did earlier, for her extreme generosity with her time and that of her Bill team. We have spent many long hours discussing these things. Given what she has just said, I hope that we may spend some more hours discussing these matters. It is actually rather a technical question: it is not a matter of high principle—it is a practical matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, imagine that the backstop is triggered four years after the previous “state of the game” report. Everyone will be saying, “This isn’t very relevant any longer; everything has changed”. I hope that the very good dialogue we have had over these last weeks can continue, because I do not really agree with the account the Minister has just given. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“Review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football(1) Within one year of establishment, the IFR must conduct a review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.(2) The review must make recommendations regarding the necessary steps to achieve the elimination of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football within five years of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to conduct a review and make recommendations regarding the steps required to eliminate advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 23, 29, 53 and 54 standing in my name. This is something that we have touched on—gambling and football. Certain sports such as horseracing tend to be dependent on gambling, but we have something of a surfeit of gambling advertising on our televisions: it is everywhere. In these amendments, I am suggesting that football might be one place we could do without it. The revenue might be very useful to the clubs involved, but we have already heard about the huge reach of football as a subject, and the fact that there is a huge demand for it. Can we not get rid of gambling here?
I have proposed four different ways of removing gambling from the football structure. We have removed other forms of gambling. The occasional flutter might not be as damaging as cigarettes, but it is very damaging for some people. It is an international sport. Look at Kenya and its problems with children gambling on the Premier League. Gambling has developed, and football is a lovely thing because you have lots of nice options to have occasional bets on. It has grown out of all recognition, into probably something none of us would even have suspected 20 years ago. I am proposing four ways of getting gambling to exit from professional football.
I could go on at great length about this, but it is fairly late and we had a good go at it in Committee. I hope the Government will say that they are going to do something on gambling in this Bill. I have given four options, and a bit of movement might make me more willing to withdraw the amendment. If I do not hear that at the appropriate time, I will press the amendment to a vote, because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point.
We have to stop it. Football markets itself as the universal game from childhood onwards. It is almost impossible. I had a discussion with the Advertising Association over a very nice dinner provided by it. The people there were talking about AI, and I asked them whether AI would allow them to filter out children. It was a resolute no, or at least they do not think so at the moment.
We have to do something here; it has got ridiculous. Can we please take some steps to stop advertising in football being quite so pervasive? It is not just on television, is on the radio, et cetera. If the Government are prepared to take some steps I will of course back them, because a slice is better than no cake. So, if the Government are prepared to do that, they will have my full support. If not, I will push this to a vote, probably on Amendment 53. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this amendment because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been saying, although I am not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do. There are many concerns about gambling, including in football, but I want to mention what one club has actually done. That club just happens to be Bolton Wanderers, which may not surprise people who have been here on other occasions.
In 2021, Bolton Wanderers closed all the on-site betting facilities that had been there for many years. That was a very big step. It committed the club to a new approach of not allowing gambling anywhere near the actual stadium, which was really important. It included not just direct gambling companies but those who were involved in them. It was a big step forward, because in the north-west, gambling has been quite a significant problem.
That was a big step for a club. There are other clubs that can and should do likewise, but Bolton Wanderers actually went one step further and introduced a system with others in the area, providing courses for fans who had been concerned about their own gambling habits and did not know where to access help. There was an outreach programme which I understand has had some degree of success, including a group called Against the Odds, which was worried about the gambling logo and the number of adverts going round the stadium during a match. It is not a solution to all the problems associated with gambling, but I mention it because it indicates what individual clubs can do, and we should encourage others to follow suit.
I agree with the noble Lord that there are the many wider problems that he has mentioned. I am personally not against gambling, per se, but I am against some of the tactics used by gambling companies to suck people in to becoming addicted and gambling more than they can afford. This is a bigger issue than just football; therefore, I understand if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept that we should be doing this in this Bill. But it is important that we are aware of that problem and that football clubs can help in these situations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments, which is antagonistic to every aspect of gambling being involved in football, seems to me to be the epitome of what I have been warning about in terms of an intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I and other Members of the Lib Dem Benches have exchanged views on gambling, both in Committee and previously, so I will aim to avoid repeating that. In some ways, this group of amendments, along with the earlier amendments on the environment, express a worry that the independent football regulator will be used as a Trojan horse for a range of political hobby-horses.
One of the aims of the Bill is that the football regulator will help clubs, particularly smaller clubs, become financially sustainable and avoid financial jeopardy. That has been a compelling and convincing argument for this Bill. So why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do? Gambling companies provide significant revenue through sponsorship for football teams. That money helps clubs not only pay staff salaries, upgrade training facilities and maintain stadiums but invest in youth academies and community projects—they often help fund and fuel those social responsibility projects that the noble Lord seemed so keen on earlier this evening.
Any special discriminatory treatment of the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors are virtuous enough to be allowed. The regulator and this Bill should keep well away from that. I am sure that, in this House, there will be people who will cheer on Dale Vince’s sponsorship of Forest Green and his ownership of Ecotricity—that would pass muster as a particular type of company, as other renewable energy companies are. In all seriousness, your Lordships might not like gambling, but what about the people who do not like airlines? What is going to happen to Emirates in relation to Arsenal, or Etihad Airways at Man City? What about those big financial services companies that also fund football teams? Who will make those kinds of moralistic decisions?
Finally, gambling is a legal activity. It is also a legitimate form of entertainment and a long-standing social activity that many people find exciting, thrilling, gets the adrenaline going and risky. Yes, you can lose and that can be disappointing, but sometimes it is thrilling when you win. One of the reasons why that is attractive is because anyone who follows the football will recognise the pattern, which is “Guess what? I might win, but I rarely do. But I can just about cope”. It is understandable that some football fans will occasionally have the odd bet and enjoy it. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Based on my own family, I am more than aware of problem gambling. Do not get me wrong: it is a vicious, nasty and horrible thing when it happens, but obsessive, compulsive gamblers are a small minority and they should not be used as an excuse to deprive football teams of valuable financial support. The Bill should have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of puritan moralism.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, while I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this is not the Bill for those concerns. We have got to be cautious in ensuring that the focus of the Bill remains squarely on football governance and not introduce far-reaching regulations on other matters—particularly in relation to gambling, where it risks duplicating or cutting across the work of the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and many other regulators that look into this thorny question and provide useful research and pointers to both the gambling industry and to those who want to tackle the harms that can be associated with it.
At present, there are no prohibitions concerning the types of companies from which clubs may accept advertising or sponsorship in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in setting out the case for his amendments, showed they were very sweeping. He wants to get rid of it entirely from football, so he has proposed some very sweeping amendments on this issue. It also cuts against the work, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, pointed out, that many individual clubs are already undertaking to ensure that what they do in this regard is done responsibly in the face of their fans.
Therefore, given the broader implications of the noble Lord’s amendments and the fact that this Bill was never intended to address complicated issues such as this, I do not think we should be taking it in this direction. If the noble Lord does divide on his amendments, we will not be supporting them.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendments in this group. As the Minister for Gambling, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impact of gambling sponsorship in football. Indeed, the noble Lord has raised this with me on a regular basis. I absolutely agree that, where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear in relation to football clubs, they must do so in a socially responsible way. The cumulative impact of gambling advertising, specifically around football, is, as I said, raised with me frequently.
I have already set the gambling industry, relatively recently, a task to raise standards to ensure that gambling advertising more widely is both proportionate and appropriate. This work will be monitored closely. It is fair and reasonable for the Government to challenge the sector to make self-regulatory improvements first. In our view, this can deliver positive change more quickly. The Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season, and many clubs, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Taylor, already do not take sponsorship or advertising by gambling firms.
All major sports have also published their gambling sponsorship codes of conduct, which set minimum standards for gambling sponsorships within sport. We will work with sports bodies to undertake a review of the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps. However, we do not believe the regulator should have a specific role in commercial matters such as advertising and sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs.
It is important to recognise the vital revenue that many clubs currently rely on via advertising and sponsorship from gambling firms, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We have to be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA and other regulators that have a remit over this area of policy.
On Amendment 29, current drafting already requires fan engagement on clubs’ business priorities and strategic approach. Discussion of a club’s overall approach to sponsorship could reasonably play a role in these consultations. We do not, however, think it appropriate for the regulator to require specific fan engagement on gambling advertising and sponsorship specifically, especially as it would not be relevant at all clubs, such as those with no gambling sponsors.
On Amendment 53, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, such as players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors. Clearly, this would, or could, have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely.
On Amendment 23, a review of gambling advertising and sponsorship in football should not, in our view, be the responsibility of a regulator with a specific remit of the kind intended by this legislation. As I have set out, the Government are already taking action in this space in conjunction with the industry and governing bodies in football and other sports. This will review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. If further action on sponsorship and advertising is needed, we will take it, but for the reasons I have set out I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, it seems to be, “Yes, something should be done—at some point in the future, we will definitely do something”. I do not really think that we can carry on like that. We have to try to do something as quickly as possible, because the combination of the smartphone and the universal web means that the temptation to gamble is constantly with us. It is something that we have not addressed properly. Most of our regulation is designed for a day before the smartphone, so I hope that we will do something now.
As I said, a series of amendments was put down to give a series of options for the Government. The Government have decided not to bite. So I give fair notice that I will be pressing Amendment 53 when the time comes, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23, standing in my name.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the minimum frequency of revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years.
Lord Ranger of Northwood
“(aa) a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices, and”
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her consideration of my amendment earlier this evening. I note that she mentioned that the annual report was not the place for the information about the potential cost implications of the independent financial football regulator in terms of its impact on ticket prices. I respectfully disagree. I think that report would be exactly the place that any financial implications that come from the IFR and the impact that they would have on football fans should be.
I also note her letter about cost implications, which also identifies that up to two and a half full-time equivalents could be placed in larger clubs in terms of cost requirements for compliance, and up to 0.5 equivalents for smaller clubs. These are significant figures. They would have an impact on the costs for clubs across our country.
I also noted in the letter that the costs would be borne by those with the broadest shoulders—a term normally used for taxation. I feel that we must be careful about placing a further burden on the shoulders of English football fans. So, with respect, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
Baroness Twycross
“(b) any emblem or crest of a relevant team operated by the club;(ba) the predominant home shirt colours of a relevant team operated by the club;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to a team’s “emblem” alongside “crest”, to avoid confusion with the heraldic use of the term “crest”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his passion for heraldry and the interesting discussions we have had on this topic in Committee and afterwards. The Government absolutely agree on the importance of this legislation being able accurately to protect club heritage. That is why officials have worked closely with the College of Arms, and I thank it for its engagement. In doing so, we have ensured that the legislation remains in step with both the FA’s heritage guidelines and heraldic terminology. The Government have tabled Amendments 30 and 49 to expand the references from “crest” to “crest or emblem”, and the noble Lord has my commitment that we will add additional clarity in the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. We will include language to the effect of the noble Lord’s Amendment 80 in the Explanatory Notes.
Turning to government Amendments 48 and 79, I would like to thank my eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Bassam again for raising awareness of the consistency of drafting in Clause 46. We absolutely agree that it is best for language to be consistent where possible. That is why we are bringing forward this amendment to align drafting. I would like to reassure noble Lords that this change has no impact on the policy; none the less, it is a change we are welcoming. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, for reasons I cannot fathom, our debates on heraldry always seem to come late in the evening. But I am delighted to see that it is commanding such interest from the Government Benches this evening. I take that as great encouragement.
I thank the Minister and her officials, who have taken a number of meetings and had a number of conversations on a subject that might seem recherché but is important not just to me but to the College of Arms and, indeed, to many who have been following the Bill. As I set out in Committee, this point was raised on social media; in a very new medium, an ancient problem was highlighted.
Some might think that the use of correct heraldic terminology is trivial, but it is my firm view that it is not. Not only should we generally aim for precision in the language we use in legislation but where the provisions of the Bill, and indeed the actions of the regulator, may intervene in the activities of a body as venerable as the College of Arms, we need to ensure that we get it right.
I welcome the good will that is reflected in the fact that the Government have brought forward some amendments, but I am afraid we have not quite got there yet, which is why I have risen to speak to my Amendment 80. To briefly summarise what I set out in Committee, the problem in government Amendment 30, which the Minister has just moved, is the term “crest”—which some will take to be the badge part of a coat of arms but is in fact what appears above it. The word “crest” is repeated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 30, where the Minister has said:
“This amendment adds a reference to a team’s ‘emblem’ alongside ‘crest’, to avoid confusion with the … use of the term ‘crest’”.
It is better to avoid that confusion by not using it, hence the amendment I brought in Committee suggesting that we should properly call it a “badge”. We are repeating the incorrect term, which is the problem that I and the College of Arms have been raising with the Government.
During the meetings we have had, we have been trying to land this point with the Government but have not quite been able to get there. I am aware that correspondence was had with the Minister’s department only today, following up the points. I know the college welcomes what she is going to put in the Explanatory Notes, as do I—that is very helpful—but it is looking for a saving clause that simply asserts, or reasserts, the authority of the Kings of Arms over armorial bearings. That is the sticking point that I hope we might yet be able to resolve on this matter.
As I understand from the College of Arms, the department’s argument is that the regulator does not approve the content or substance of a proposed club badge but merely decides whether it went through the required process of consultation under the Bill. The department argues, therefore, that there is never any risk of the regulator straying on to the college’s turf since the regulator is not involved in the question of what a badge consists of or looks like. The Government argue that that is why nothing is needed. Rather perversely, they argue that a saving clause would create the impression that there is a conflict here, but that misses the point. When taken as a whole, the Bill does create approval for a badge, which it incorrectly calls a crest, albeit via consultation with fans and others. The Bill creates a mechanism for the approval, and indeed disapproval, of a badge—mistakenly called a crest—in statute. That cannot fail to create a sense that, at some level, the badge that has gone through the process has achieved some kind of authorised status.
In Committee we discussed the examples of problems that may occur. In lots of local authorities, a football club uses the same or a similar coat of arms as the local authority. If there were to be a conflict between that local authority and that club about the proper use of it, the College of Arms would be asked to step in and adjudicate. So there is a risk that the Bill unwittingly encroaches on the Crown’s prerogative in regard to heraldry. This is not the same as trademarks, but in the case of coats of arms we are talking about the Crown prerogative, which surely limits the extent to which parallel clauses for other parties are required.
What the College of Arms is asking for, and what I am suggesting in my Amendment 80, is not unusual. There are plenty of examples of saving clauses in other legislation; for instance, Section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. My Amendment 80, which the college hopes to see put on the face of the Bill, not just in the Explanatory Notes, would follow the well-established precedent of protecting with absolute certainty the rights of the Kings of Arms.
All of us who have come into your Lordships’ House have taken our first steps in this Chamber following, slowly and reverently, the footsteps of the Garter Principal King of Arms, an office that has existed since 1415. We went to see him at the College of Arms, to seek agreement for our very names and titles. We have sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign that it is his solemn duty to proclaim at the moment of accession. So I hope that we can give him a few moments of our attention, even at this late hour and at this late stage of the Bill.
The saving clause that I have proposed, drafted in general terms, will not create the impression that the regulator will be involved in considering the substance of designs—or anything else, for that matter. I believe it is a simple but important amendment, which I very much hope the Minister will be able to accept. Happily, if there should need to be a Division on my Amendment 80, it would not come tonight but on day 2. I hope that, if she is not able to give that reassurance now, she will be able to take it away, reflect on it further—particularly in the light of the correspondence that I know she and her department have had today—and avoid the need to divide on this.
I am very grateful for the time and attention that the Minister has given, and for the improvements that we have had already. This final insertion really is the matter that would allay the concerns of the College of Arms and, therefore, my concerns as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his engagement on this matter and for his amendment.
We genuinely do not think that this matter is trivial but we do believe that the language in the noble Lord’s amendment would be a redundant addition to the legislation; we do not think that it is required. This is because, aside from the terminology used regarding the club emblems, the regulator’s powers are not expected to interact with the College of Arms and, therefore, the powers of the Kings of Arms.
Indeed, the regulator will ensure that fans have been properly consulted on proposed changes, but it will not be for the regulator to approve designs, only the process of clubs working with fans. This is rightly for other organisations, including the College of Arms, but also the Intellectual Property Office and other bodies.
As the regulator has no role in what the crest or emblem looks like, nor whether it infringes on any trademarks or copyright, it is implicit that the relevant body’s decision will supersede any related action by the regulator. There are many instances where the regime has been designed specifically not to conflict with existing powers and processes, such as law enforcement investigations or HMRC business requirements. However, it is unnecessary and unconventional practice for all parties that may work on parallel issues to the statutory body to be listed.
I hope that, through the changes we have made, and through further explanations in the Explanatory Notes, the noble Lord will be reassured that the sanctity of the College of Arms will be preserved. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further but, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support these government amendments. I beg to move Amendment 30.