Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to explore the justification for providing the mayor with a veto over decisions of a Combined County Authority.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson is a probing amendment concerning why the Government wish to give mayors a veto over the decisions of a combined county authority.
If this Bill is truly about empowering local communities, decision-making power should be allocated equally between all elected councillors, not concentrated in the hands of one political party individual. This is not to say that the mayor should not have a vote, or perhaps even a casting vote, but we currently see no justification for giving mayors a veto over all decisions made by a majority of a community’s democratically elected representatives. This would not empower local government but would instead turn it into a kind of presidential system. That is not how we do things in this country, nor do we want to.
Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley seek to bring the Bill in line with past legislation. Amendment 42 is in relation to the voting powers of members of combined county authorities whereby the Secretary of State can make provision for different weights to be given to votes of different types of members, as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Amendment 44, on transport, seeks to bring the Bill in line with the arrangements set out in the Local Transport Act 2008 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. These amendments seem entirely sensible—unless the Government have other reasons, and we would be grateful if they elaborated on those if they do.
Amendment 43, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, again probes the Government as to why the decisions of a combined county authority must require the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a simple majority of local councillors. We believe this would undermine local democracy, rather than empowering it. If decisions require the agreement of the mayor, a majority of councillors may be disregarded and the wishes of the people ignored. That is not democracy, nor have we heard any arguments as to why it is needed.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Jamieson and I oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, since we do not see why the Government have deemed it necessary to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to replace the constitutional arrangement it sets out. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government hope to empower mayors over other local councillors, since this does not empower local democracy; rather, it empowers a select few individuals tasked with representing large geographical areas with different communities, who inevitably will have different needs.
As the Bill stands, this will not further localism; rather it will centralise power and take away the decision-making powers of local councillors. Not only does this fly in the face of the Bill’s title, but we have not been given any justification or reasoning for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and speak to these amendments to Clause 6. The clause relates to decision-making in combined county authorities and combined authorities and its purpose is to provide for a default structure of voting in both kinds of strategic authorities. In particular, that default structure would provide that in mayoral authorities the majority in favour of a decision must include the mayor, thus in effect giving the mayor a veto over decisions, since the majority excluding the mayor would not be decisive.
Before I turn to my amendments, and apropos of the question of whether the clause stands part, I will ask a question. I refer noble Lords and the Minister to Section 13(2)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The section enables regulations to be made about members, and Section 13(2)(a) states that those regulations can include provision about
“cases in which a decision of a CCA requires a majority, or a particular kind of majority, of the votes of members of a particular kind”.
It seems to me that that paragraph of the levelling-up Act enables exactly what the Minister is setting out to do by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation. Could she tell us why primary legislation is required to achieve this purpose? That might inform our deliberations on the stand part debate.
Amendments 42 and 44 are in my name. I do not share my noble friend’s desire, set out in her Amendments 41 and 43, to take out the mayoral veto from the clause. I have been a resident in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority for however many years. When we had a mayor, the mayor found it very difficult to secure, for example, a non-statutory spatial strategy, not least because the mayor was often frustrated in getting a policy through due to the votes of one of the strategic authority’s constituent councils. In my view, if you elect a mayor and you want a mayor to exercise leadership in a strategic authority, it does not follow that the mayor will necessarily be able to get everything that the mayor wants, and the mayor will have to secure a majority to do so. It is very difficult for the mayor to carry on and provide that leadership if there is a majority that can carry proposals against his or her own policy.
This therefore forces the mayor to act in a certain way. I have seen that in Cambridgeshire, where the current mayor, Paul Bristow, is doing a very good job; he will be known to some of my noble friends. Partly because of this legislation, he is securing a majority in the combined authority, not least because there is an expectation that the strategic authority, when it gets these powers, will be able to make progress with the majority that includes him, and so he will not be able to be blocked by one constituent council.
I turn my focus to my Amendments 42 and 44. The former relates to combined county authorities. In this Committee, I am afraid that we are getting used to the fact that we have to do everything twice, because we have to legislate both for combined county authorities and for combined authorities; it will get a lot simpler when we have just one kind of strategic authority and when legislation for all strategic authorities is pretty much the same. Nevertheless, combined county authorities are governed by Section 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which enables the Secretary of State to set out their constitutional arrangements. Section 10(2)(b) includes
“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
That is the existing legislation: it provides for different weights to be allocated to different members. The current situation is that the constitution of a combined county authority is not a “one member, one vote” arrangement—it can vary.
Clause 6 will insert new Section 13A into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It says that
“each voting member has one vote”.
So, what I am really asking by way of these two amendments—in this instance, for combined county authorities—is: does the primary legislation we are discussing now override, in effect, the existing potential for regulations to determine a different weight for different members for different decisions; or, because of this primary legislation, does it have to be “one member, one vote”?
There is a problem there. That problem was illustrated to me when we had a meeting just a few weeks back—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook will recall it—about Suffolk. It was about unitaries, as it happened, but it also encompassed a discussion about the prospective Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority, which is in the devolution priority programme. The leader of Suffolk County Council was asked, “Suffolk is a single unitary and Norfolk is three, maybe even four, unitaries. What happens if they come together into one strategic authority?”
The problem is easily illustrated: one constituent council and one vote equals perhaps three votes for Norfolk and one vote for Suffolk. The leader of Suffolk County Council said, “That’s not a problem because we’ll weight the votes”. This is exactly what one would do using existing legislation, but I am worried that the structure of the Bill’s drafting will take that discretion away. That is the purpose of my Amendment 42.
My Amendment 44 relates to combined authorities, not combined county authorities, but it runs to the exact same issue. Of course, combined authorities are governed not by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, Section 104 of which provides that the constitutional arrangements for combined authorities may, by order, be made according to the provisions of the Local Transport Act 2008. Section 84 of that latter Act relates to constitutional arrangements; subsection (2)(b) refers to
“the voting powers of members of the ITA”—
the integrated transport authority—
“(including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
The Committee will recognise those exact same words, so we are dealing with exactly the same issue: is it different weights for different members, or is it to be overridden by “one member, one vote”?
I want, as the outcome of this debate, for us to be sure that this legislation continues to permit a constitution for a strategic authority that both allocates different weights to different members and enables voting power to reflect the wide range of circumstances of constituent councils and other voting members of strategic authorities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall be very brief because it would be better if the Minister responded to the important points that have been made.
I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to say two things that will, I think, help in this situation. First, we must get clarity about which powers are only for the mayor and which are to be shared with the combined authority; it is important that that be made clear. Secondly, on voting in the combined authority, there is at times a requirement for a two-thirds majority and, at other times, a requirement for a simple majority. We need to be absolutely clear why those differences apply.
With that, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the first clauses of the Bill last week. I have replied in writing to some of the questions noble Lords asked me last week, and I hope they have received those replies. I look forward to further scrutiny today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their amendments to Clause 6, on decision-making arrangements. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 6 is required. Clause 6 is central to the Bill’s core ambition of moving from devolution by deals to devolution by default. It creates a clear and consistent decision-making framework for combined authorities and combined county authorities. Current decision-making arrangements in combined authorities and combined county authorities are complex and vary widely, as noble Lords who have spoken have referred to. This confuses the public and makes accountability harder. For example, mayors are often seen by the public as the accountable person for their authority, but the Mayor of the West of England and the Mayor of the West Midlands are not allowed to vote on their combined authority’s budget.
Clause 6 introduces a simple majority voting system which makes decisions more transparent, creates a level playing field and provides more clarity for the public. For mayoral strategic authorities, the mayor must be in the majority for a vote to pass. This reflects their direct democratic mandate across the entire area. When he was referring to Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the consequences if that is not in place. I think it is an important move. Collaboration remains important, and we are clear that we want to see mayors build a consensus, but one member should not be able to block decisions for an entire region. Removing Clause 6 would keep the current patchwork of governance rules, which slows decision-making down and can undermine accountability to the public, so we believe the clause is essential for strong, transparent governance and should remain in the Bill.
Amendments 41 and 43, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to understand the justification for providing the mayor with a veto over decisions and why decisions must require the agreement of the mayor. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration with strategic authorities. That is exactly why the Bill requires both the mayor and the constituent members to work together. The standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of members support a decision. We believe the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between collective decision-making and clear leadership. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are elected by the public to provide leadership and direction for their whole area. Requiring mayoral agreement on key decisions helps ensure clarity over who is accountable for outcomes. Without that clarity, responsibility risks becoming blurred. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution. It would lead to slower decision-making, less coherent strategies and reduced accountability to the public.
Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to provide that secondary legislation can be used to set voting arrangements for combined authorities and combined county authorities that differ from the standard arrangements set out in Clause 6. The Government agree that simple majority voting would not be appropriate for all situations. That is why Clause 6 already provides that voting arrangements set out in other enactments continue to apply. Therefore, these amendments are not necessary. For example, in non-mayoral areas the local transport plan must instead have the consent of all constituent councils in order to be adopted. In mayoral areas, the local transport plan remains a mayoral function, but it must be approved by a simple majority vote of the strategic authority. The existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements in secondary legislation, to which the amendments refer, will also apply.
Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act—that is a snappy title—and Clause 6, the Bill does not disapply or override those Acts. Their relevant provisions continue to apply where appropriate, so restating them here does not add any new legal protection. Including additional statutory references risks creating confusion about which provisions apply in different circumstances and undermines the clarity of the governance framework the Bill is trying to apply.
We recognise that some parts of the country have unique technical circumstances that require small changes to this consistent approach, such as to reflect arrangements relating to the management of trams or local bus companies. We have undertaken extensive engagement with existing combined authorities and combined county authorities over the past 12 months on this issue to agree a limited set of bespoke voting arrangements that met this high bar. Should any future strategic authority seek bespoke arrangements, the Government would need to consider them on a case-by-case basis. However, we are clear that any changes to the standard voting arrangements would be by exception and subject to a very high bar.
The Government will maintain some of the place-specific voting arrangements. For example, Lancashire combined authority has bespoke voting arrangements in relation to its budget, which reflects its governance structure. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about weighted voting, the existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements will continue to apply, so that will be for Suffolk and Norfolk to determine as we go forward. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I said, the issues raised today go to the heart of how we structure local democracy and ensure that the voices of all our communities are fairly and effectively represented. That is why we brought forward these probing amendments.
A consistent concern has emerged that the balance of power proposed in the Bill risks concentrating authority in the hands of the one single officeholder rather than empowering the broad and diverse range of locally elected councillors who best understand the communities that they serve. I have not heard a lot today that puts my mind at rest, but I will read Hansard tomorrow and look further at it. I was pleased that the Minister said that places such as Norfolk and Suffolk, quite close to my heart now, will have that flexibility to deal with local problems—but I have to say that they might argue about it. Who knows? Let us hope that there are two single authorities and we do not have any problems.
We all agree that effective local leadership is vital, but leadership does not mean overriding democratic deliberations; it means working with those local representatives, ensuring accountability and respecting the mandate of those who have been elected by their communities. When decision-making structures are distorted in favour of one individual, however capable, they operate not as a system of local democracy but, as I said, as a presidential model, which sits uneasily with the traditions of government in this country.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment rightly seeks to bring the Bill back into alignment with those frameworks established in previous legislation. I will read this back, but it sounds as if that is happening, although I am not quite sure how. If there are any further questions, I am sure that we will talk to the Minister about them. I am happy with that.
In relation to Clause 6, we have urged the Government to reconsider whether rewriting the constitutional arrangements of the Act was necessary or justified. It looks to me as if we are perhaps not rewriting as much as we feared was being rewritten—but, as I said, we will look at that in detail when Hansard comes out.
We still believe that, if the Government truly wish to empower our local authorities, they must demonstrate it by upholding democratic balance, trusting councillors and ensuring that all voices, not just one, carry the appropriate weight in the decisions that shape our counties and regions. But at this time, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Clause 6 provides, right at the end, that Schedule 2 makes further provision, including in relation to the spatial development strategy that strategic authorities are required to produce under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by Section 58 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Those who are former inmates of the Stockholm syndrome that was the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall this very well. I apologise to all those noble Lords for revisiting this, but I hope with a useful purpose.
Alongside a spatial development strategy, the Bill requires, in Clause 39 and Schedule 20, the strategic authority also to prepare a local growth plan. Noble Lords will see that, by virtue of the transport and infrastructure powers of strategic authorities and their power to charge a community infrastructure levy linked to that infrastructure provision—Clause 34 and Schedule 15 provide for that—the strategic authority will need to have, in addition to a local growth plan, an infrastructure strategy and an infrastructure delivery framework. I hope that is what they intend to do. The purpose of my amendments in this group is to link these things together. I entirely take the point that the Minister may rightly make: “Surely that’s what strategic authorities have to do”. But we have statutory provision in relation to the spatial development strategy, in particular, that does not refer across to local growth plans and I think it is important that it does.
There are two things that should be linked. Amendments 138 and 144 say that the local growth plan should identify, for the spatial development strategy then to take into account, the employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities identified in the local growth plan. Noble Lords will recall from the Planning and Infrastructure Act that there are a number of specifics that the spatial development strategy has to take on board, but they are essentially housing related. I did not succeed in persuading the Government that they should also specifically take account of employment and related issues. But that is exactly what will happen in practice, and ought to happen: the local growth plan and the employment opportunities associated with it should be an essential part of the strategic process of establishing the spatial development in that area. I cannot see that they can be separated and done without reference to each other.
Amendments 139 and 145 are intended for the local growth plan to identify the infrastructure needed to meet the growth priorities set out in the local growth plan. As a consequence, it must identify the employment-related implications for the spatial development strategy. I do not think that I am inventing these kinds of processes. I have been involved locally for a number of years—I refer to my registered interest as chair, over the years, of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The way a local plan is established—and in due course the spatial development strategy for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—starts from an understanding of the future employment implications of the growth that will occur in our area. It is substantial and those growth priorities will be laid out in the local growth plan, a draft of which has already been produced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. That is a starting point for understanding the spatial development strategy that I hope it will now rapidly go on to produce.
There are two sets of amendments, one for county combined authorities and the other for combined authorities. I hope that Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would secure an internal coherence between the local growth plan and the infrastructure priorities derived from that local growth plan, which is then linked into the planning of where that growth in employment and housing should be located through the spatial development strategy. I hope that consistency would enable the strategic authorities to work effectively.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We must ensure that any spatial development strategy underlines and works with the principles of the Environmental Improvement Plan and the upcoming land use framework, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out. Particularly regarding the latter, it makes no sense to have two systems dealing with how we use our land pulling in different directions—which is the risk here. We have these central government legally binding environmental targets, so we need to use the Bill to ensure that this new devolved governance structure means that each tool is deployed in an effective but consistent manner. Consistency is key here.
Bluntly, I do not see how we can halt biodiversity loss, let alone restore it, without giving authorities the duty to work towards meeting these targets. A recently published global biodiversity assessment highlighted the threats to the UK’s national security and prosperity from biodiversity loss and really stressed the importance of delivering the 30by30. This is a very tall target at the best of times, but if we have the devolved Governments pulling in different directions on this, there is no chance that we will reach anywhere near it. We are a long way off right now—at 7%—so have an awfully long way to go in the next seven years.
This amendment would mean that authorities think about nature recovery, soil, water and land use from the outset, rather than as something to be dealt with at a later stage. We had a long-standing debate on this in the planning Bill. This is often where the delays are, caused by nature and environmental considerations. If we consider the environment strategically before we get into this whole planning process, I hope many of those delays and debates will go away, so we do not have them. This will reduce conflicts and create more consistency in how we achieve our environmental targets. It is a very good amendment and it has my strong support. I see it as essential but also proportionate.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Spatial development strategies are a really big opportunity and much to be welcomed. We have long needed a spatial view at that sort of level, so we have to get this right because there is a lot that they can deliver.
However, to be frank, if spatial development strategies do not play a key role in delivering things such as the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, I am not entirely sure how government will get those statutory targets delivered, because the land is fundamental to delivering those targets. The question really is: if there is not some strong guidance that the spatial development strategies must play a role in delivering the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, how will government ensure that these targets are met? Is it envisaged that there will be guidance rather than something in the Bill?
We should not underestimate the importance of the environment for growth. I remember years ago, when some of the big drug companies were thinking about where they were going to put production facilities, they came to the conclusion that England’s green and pleasant land was a pretty good place to come. Not only was there a reasonably stable economy in those days, but there were also excellent places for the people they would have to attract—potentially from other countries but also from other parts of the UK—to come and work for them. They were also potentially attractive places for those businesses to come and pursue sustainability and growth as part of their global strategies. Therefore, a pleasant, productive environment not only provides security against climate shocks, flooding, heat and all those things if done on a big enough scale; it is also an attractive place for businesses to come because they can get good staff who want to come and live in pleasant places. That is a crucial element that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out.
I have stood up and talked about the land use framework many times; I do go on about its importance. For me, it has two major importances. First, it brings a degree of rationality to considerations and discussions about competing land uses, which is absolutely what regional—spatial—development strategies ought to be doing as well, so they are very complementary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, pointed out, the land use framework is also a means of reducing conflict.
We all too often see development being delayed because there is local or county-level antipathy by the public to what is being proposed. A land use framework approach is a way of getting that dialogue going across multiple land uses—including land for climate, biodiversity and other environmental management, and land for development—that can introduce a note of calmness, conciliation, balance and rationality to the debate. The land use framework is important and the big problem right now of course is its timing. We have been a very long time waiting for it. My understanding, and the Minister can perhaps confirm this, is that it is in a good enough shape for write-round, but we hear that it may well be delayed.
The reality is that we are up against a hard deadline. The hard deadline for me—and this is a purely personal view, not the view of my party, I am sure—is that we are going to have a rough time in the elections in May and there could well be all sorts of reshuffles emanating from that. The last thing that any of us wants is for a brand-new set of Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, or even a few Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, who quite rightly, in the case of something as important as the land use framework, will want to delay and have a look at it themselves to make sure that they understand it and that they are behind it. That could cause even more delay, so if we do not get it agreed and published by late April, we could be stuffed—I think that is the technical term. Perhaps we could persuade the Minister to tell us what it would take to get this announced by April.
There is one further requirement that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, does not cover, which is the whole issue of local nature recovery strategies. Those noble Lords who have played a role in local nature recovery strategy development and approval will realise just how much sweat and blood has been magnificently used at a county level to produce these agreed strategies. They are very much another brick in the wall of the rational approach to land use. There has been a huge amount of engagement of local authorities, communities and NGOs at the county level to get these strategies going. They are incredibly valuable, because they have been a meeting ground for all these competing land use bodies. One has to ask: what is the point of a local nature recovery strategy if it does not play a role and does not figure in the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister assure us that local nature recovery strategies will be material in local development strategies? If so, why not put it the Bill? Depending on her answer, I may have to egg on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to add that into consideration on Report.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, but can I probe the Minister, for when she responds, about what happens in London? In London, all 33 boroughs—or 32 plus the City, if you want to be pedantic—would all have their own local plans, and out of those local plans would come all our different plans. Then, of course, you have the London Plan, which potentially trumps—I am going to take on board some of the language just used, but I think “trumps” probably is the best phrase to use—what is done locally. Not only can it contradict what is done locally, which has quite often cost an awful lot of money, time, sweat, tears and everything else, but in addition to that it creates uncertainty. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could think about the London scenario, please.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 46, particularly the reference to the land use framework. The point about the land use framework is that it is not a dictatorial thing; it is not saying, “Thou must do this or that” or “Thou must grow that”, or whatever it might be. It is definitely a framework, but on the other hand there is no point in having a framework unless it is part of the thinking from the top to the bottom of government—central government to regional government to local authority and everything in between.
I should also say that a land use framework is not necessarily a fixed event. It is not going to be cast in stone for ever and it should be open to review from time to time. I would have thought that three years would be the right sort of time. However, it needs to change according to events, including world events. Do we need more homegrown food production as a result of current world politics? Does the latest research tell us that our biodiversity is still receding, running away from us? Does the international situation indicate that we need more homegrown green power or more homegrown timber? That is important. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I have just come from a meeting where it was indicated that the Government’s long-term housebuilding programme could very much depend on our ability to produce the relevant timber products needed. What would be the point of a land use framework if regional and local government just continue to do their own thing regardless? Therefore, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial to the efficient management of that very scarce UK commodity—namely, our land.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it would be unhelpful if regional and local government continued doing their own thing. I think that this is an important debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, but the Government might look at the powers that existed with regional development agencies until 2012, in terms of spatial development strategies and the land use framework, when a lot was done. They might revisit that to make sure that everyone going off to do their own thing—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—is avoided.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendments. I think that there has been consensus among noble Lords contributing on this group that this is something that should be explored and looked at further. Amendment 45 rightly links local growth plans to spatial development strategies, ensuring that they are not formed in isolation and do not contradict each other. When a local growth plan is drafted, it should take account of the implications for spatial development. We welcome this amendment and support a more integrated and coherent approach.
However, we also believe that these plans must be informed by neighbourhood plans as well as neighbourhood priority statements, which have yet to be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies take into account national environmental improvement plans and the land use framework. This will help local government at least to have regard to the national Government’s environmental targets and to be aware of the environmental solutions proposed. As for the land use framework, we are still waiting for it to be published. Can the Minister confirm the timeline? As others have asked, will it be imminent?
Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 address the need for spatial development strategies to be aligned with infrastructure projects to identify any that are needed for growth. Again, these should be important considerations to ensure that new developments are supported with the necessary infrastructure rather than treating the two in isolation. As we said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debates, the consequences for development of the failure to deliver infrastructure should also be clear.
We agree with the principle behind all these amendments. It is important that combined authorities’ and councils’ various strategies are joined up, co-ordinated and coherent to ensure not only good governance and efficiency across local government but, more importantly, high-quality development. I thank my noble friend for his efforts and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of spatial development strategies in the new devolution framework.
Amendment 45 would require strategic planning authorities to identify the policies in their spatial development strategies that are of strategic importance to address the local growth priorities identified in local growth plans. I very much agree with the need for spatial development strategies properly to address the priorities identified in local growth plans where they are of strategic importance to the area, such as the issues that the noble Lord mentioned around skills and infrastructure. There is an expectation in the revised NPPF that that is exactly what will happen.
The Planning and Infrastructure Act, to which the noble Lord also referred—we recently sat through many hours of debate on it—requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy they have published. This would include a local growth plan. In the draft revised NPPF, which was published just before Christmas, we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans, and that would include all of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We also set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should be tested against national policy when they are examined; that will include the industrial strategy, for example, and will shine a light on whether they are meeting the expectations we have of the SDS.
A number of Peers spoke to Amendment 46. I say to my noble friend Lady Young that I found her extrapolation of this through to losing lots of elections in May and then having a whole reshuffle a bit depressing. I hope that will not happen, and I also hope that my noble friend will have a wander through one of her new forests and cheer herself up a bit. Amendment 46 would require a strategic planning authority to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan and the land use framework for England while preparing a spatial development strategy.
I absolutely agree with noble Lords on the importance of these national documents relating to land use and the environment. The provisions detailing the required content of spatial development strategies and the factors to be taken into account in their preparation were introduced less than two months ago in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, following very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary to revisit or amend these requirements before they have even had a chance to be tested in practice. The documents in question are expected to inform the drafting of national planning policies, and strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with the current policy.
For example, if we found that the land use framework or the environmental improvement plan were being ignored in strategic development strategies, we would keep that under review. Should any gaps or misalignments emerge between strategic development strategies and these documents, we can consider future changes to the National Planning Policy Framework or planning practice guidance, or even secondary legislation to ensure that they are taken into account in preparing an SDS.
A number of noble Lords asked questions on the publication of the land use framework, which I know is eagerly awaited. The Government consulted on land use in England from January to April last year. The responses, as well as the feedback from supporting workshops that have been held since, are being analysed. The responses will inform the preparation of the land use framework. I cannot give noble Lords an exact publication date today, I am afraid, but I know that my colleagues in Defra want to publish it as quickly as possible.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about regional plans, I used to be on the regional assembly, so I sat thought the entire process of the east of England regional plan; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, did so as well, I believe. There were a lot of lessons to be learned from those regional plans, particularly around the co-ordination of data and so on, and I know that officials in the department have taken into consideration how that was done. We need to reflect carefully on those experiences and how they fit in with what we are about to do with strategic development strategies.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about London. The London plan sits outside this Bill, I think, but there is an expectation on London boroughs that this will be done. Indeed, my own borough is quite a way outside London—well, 28 miles; we are in Hertfordshire, so not that far—and we were consulted on the London plan as part of the Ring Around London consultation.
On my noble friend Lady Young’s question about the local nature recovery strategies, it is a requirement that SDSs take account of those; indeed, the London plan has to take account of local nature recovery strategies as well.
Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would require mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set out in their local growth plan what is needed in spatial and infrastructure terms to realise the economic growth opportunities presented in the plan. As with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying these needs. Local growth plans will be required to set out an economic overview of their area, shared priorities agreed with the Government, and a pipeline of investment opportunities. Where infra- structure or development presents a relevant investment opportunity, we would expect it to be included in that pipeline. We are clear that local growth plans should provide an overarching framework for growth, identifying actions and investment that can drive economic growth and productivity.
But, when it comes to addressing the spatial implications of local growth plans and identifying the development and infrastructure needs for realising growth, the right vehicle is the spatial development strategy. That is why we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans when we published our proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we will come to local growth plans and culture. Can the Minister confirm that the spatial development strategies will include cultural growth as something to look at?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and to all noble Lords who spoke on this group. In particular, I give warm thanks to those who supported Amendment 46. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, rightly said, we may need to think about this again on Report, just to check, for example, that the National Planning Policy Framework does what the Minister says it does. At the moment, I cannot honestly say that I am sure that it does.
Noble Lords who are often in these planning discussions will always find it rather odd to try to work out that the Government sometimes say that we need to put something in the Bill. For example, local nature recovery strategies are prescribed to be taken into account for a spatial development strategy. Why not prescribe the land use framework? That, apparently, will be covered in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, as we know, is a document that derives statutory weight. So, if it is in there, the weight is there, and that is fine. But the point is that we are writing this legislation now, and this gives us an opportunity for Parliament to say what it thinks, because we cannot and do not debate the content of the National Planning Policy Framework in the way that we debate this legislation. So, there is a reason why we do this now, in the here and now.
There are many links to, for example, environmental well-being, local nature recovery strategies and promoting the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change in the way spatial development strategies are to be constructed. I just think we need to be absolutely certain that Ministers will make that clear in the NPPF. Indeed, they have a power under Section 12D(7) to prescribe the matters that spatial development strategies must include. We just need a bit more certainty that these things will be prescribed.
Where the relationship with the growth plan is concerned, I completely take the Minister’s point. It is just that, although growth appears to be the priority, actually the spatial development strategy says that the strategic authority should focus on the consequences of growth rather than on delivering the growth. The relationship between the local growth plan and the spatial development strategy is much more of an ex ante than post hoc set of decisions. You want to go upfront and say that we are designing the local growth plan alongside the spatial development strategy and not trying to retrofit the housing to meet the local growth requirements. I hope that that is what is going to happen; otherwise, I fear that these will be two teams in strategic authorities, with the economic development people on the one hand and the planning people on the other, when they should be one team producing one strategy. I hope that we can encourage that as much as possible through the nature of the debates we are having.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the new subsection inserting a new section into the LURA to provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 49 would allow the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation to cause a mayoral combined authority to cease to be a mayoral strategic authority if, and only if, the combined authority consents for this to be the case. That would allow the structures of local government to be formed locally, according to local needs, priorities and democratic wishes, rather than setting in stone structures that may not be suitable for local communities later down the line.
On the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities, Amendment 47 would remove the proposed power of the Secretary of State to designate a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority because we believe that the process should be locally led and not imposed from above. Amendments 48 and 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley also address the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities.
The Government White Paper set out the eligibility criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier. These amendments seek to give a basis for deciding whether proposals for a mayoral combined county authority, a mayoral combined authority, or for being designated an established mayoral strategic authority, have substantive merit.
We also know that the scope of integrated settlements for mayoral strategic authorities will be confirmed at each spending review, on the basis of functional responsibilities and their value, by a formulaic process. Can the Minister please elaborate on what those responsibilities are and on the formulaic process? Authorities need to be able to feed back on the amounts and types of funding they receive, so what process will be in place to ensure that funding is based on funding received from authorities?
In addition, how will government ensure that the timeline for this Bill aligns with the timelines for new strategic authorities and the spending review? Will the new mayors have the same powers and financial resources made available to them as the existing mayors? Local government reorganisation should not be undertaken simply for the sake of it; the Government’s plans and timelines need to be coherent and co-ordinated and underpinned by genuine principles for devolution to be meaningful and effective. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and the Minister’s response on these matters. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 48 and 50. It is another of those occasions when there are two amendments to achieve one purpose. Amendment 48 relates to county combined authorities and Amendment 50 to combined authorities, and each is on the question of under what circumstances they should be able to be designated by the Secretary of State as an established mayoral strategic authority.
On the purpose of designation, two key things happen when you are an established strategic authority. First, you can have access to an integrated financial settlement. This is quite an important issue, although it is not in the Bill because it is financial; it would be determined by Treasury financial legislation. However, this being established means that it is a gateway to the ability to manage finances with what we would call in departments the power environment between different headings. These would normally not be available to local authorities where they receive delegated funding for one purpose and want to be able to use it for other purposes.
As we progress, if there is to be a significant tourism revenue to strategic authorities, the financial arrangements of strategic authorities will be an important element. We may come back to that in later groups. I do not want to dwell on that. The point is that this is the gateway to an integrated financial settlement from the Treasury. Very few strategic authorities have it now. I suppose that London and Manchester will get it first, in this spending review, then other strategic authorities will get it in the next spending review.
Secondly—we will no doubt come back to this on Clause 51—there is the ability of established mayoral strategic authorities to seek additional powers and functions within the designated areas of competence. That is quite an important additional power. These are two important powers, and Amendments 48 and 50 ask by what means the Secretary of State decides whether they should be established. What is in the Bill sets out a process but no criteria.
Paragraph 2.2.4 of the English devolution White Paper told us that there would be criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier: that the strategic authority has
“been in existence … for at least 18 months … has a published Local Assurance Framework in place … has not been the subject of a Best Value Notice, a MHCLG commissioned independent review, or a statutory inspection or intervention … is not subject to any ongoing (or implementing) recommendations from an externally mandated independent review; and there are no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year”.
These are essentially matters of financial governance and accountability. I do not understand why the Bill makes no reference to the criteria the Secretary of State would apply, given that the devolution White Paper has set them out specifically. If my amendments were accepted, an indication would at the very least be given of the criteria: effective governance, accountability, and specified performance metrics.
It is a good idea that, as this develops, a specific power be provided in the legislation enabling the Secretary of State to publish the criteria that will be applied to the question of designation. It would not be right simply to say that there is a process but no criteria. We should have the criteria established.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, for their amendments on established mayoral strategic authorities.
Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to designate by regulations a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority. We have been clear that newer strategic authorities will need a chance to establish themselves and set up core functions properly before they exercise all the powers in the devolution framework. However, it is important that our most established strategic authorities are not held back from accessing the full suite of powers in the devolution framework.
The ability for the Secretary of State to designate established mayoral strategic authorities is crucial to ensuring that the most mature institutions have full access to all devolved powers. Amendment 47 is therefore inconsistent with the Government’s objective of devolving further powers out of Whitehall. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, established mayoral strategic authorities have access to an integrated settlement, which is a very important measure for them.
I will set out further where we have got to with this so far, as it might help noble Lords with the concept. The English Devolution White Paper confirmed that the following combined authorities have met the criteria and will be eligible to apply for the established mayoral level of devolution: Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and the North East.
Once the Bill becomes law, several other combined authorities will become eligible to apply for MSA status: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, East Midlands, and York and North Yorkshire at that point. These prospective established mayoral authorities will need to submit formal proposals outlining how they meet the relevant criteria. Those proposals will then be considered by the Government, taking into account the combined authority’s or combined county authority’s track record of managing major programmes. The Government will engage with all remaining mayoral combined authorities when they meet the eligibility criteria to apply for established mayoral strategic authority status. I hope that that helps to clarify where we are at the moment.
In practice, the effect of this amendment would be to remove the regulation-making power when the Secretary of State designates an established mayoral strategic authority. In the absence of that regulation-making power, designation would instead rest solely on the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore deny Parliament a say on the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities.
Amendment 49, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before making subordinate legislation in relation to the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before removing its status as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation. However, the actual effect of the amendment would be inconsequential, as Clause 8 already prohibits the Secretary of State from using secondary legislation to remove an authority’s established status. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
Also, if in tabling this amendment the noble Baroness was seeking reassurance that a combined county authority could not be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation without the consent of the authority, then this amendment is also not necessary. Clause 8 already stipulates that the Secretary of State may designate an authority as established only if that authority itself submits a written proposal asking to be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. Therefore, the authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies.
Amendments 48 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to introduce a new statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the
“governance, accountability and specified performance metrics”
of an existing mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority, before it can be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. I accept that the noble Lord has made this amendment in good faith and wishes to ensure that only those authorities with a strong track record of delivery, and which can demonstrate exemplary stewardship of public finances, are able to access the deepest powers and functions. On this, the noble Lord, the Government and I, as the Minister, are aligned. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The Government have already published clear non-statutory criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. The reason for having this in non-statutory documents is that it may require amending from time to time, depending on our experience of taking this forward.
To answer the question about criteria from the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, already set them out, but just to be clear, they include that a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority must have been in existence, with a directly elected mayor, for at least 18 months at the point of submitting the request. It must have published a local assurance framework and it must not have been subject to a best value notice, independent review, statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months. Finally, it must not have been subject to any ongoing recommendations from an externally mandated independent review and there should be no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year that relate to the strategic authority’s ability to manage public money.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want just to be sure that I am clear. On the criteria that are applied by the Secretary of State to the question of whether a strategic authority that applies to be established should be permitted to do so, so far they presently include what the devolution White Paper said. None of that has been withdrawn and nothing has been added; it is still the same. But if that were to change at some point in the future, the Government do not need a power in order to change it, because the Secretary of State will simply issue some document that says, “From now on, this is how the Secretary of State is going to look at these decisions”. It is important to get these criteria right. Unless I am misunderstanding the Minister, the intention is that this is a gateway through which you can pass in only one direction. You become an established mayoral strategic authority and you cannot come back if it is wrong, so the criteria have to be right, and the mayoral strategic authority has to be able to live permanently with that status. Am I correct about that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, the noble Lord is right, but this is quite a high level of criteria. There are some financial aspects, but the fact that the authority must not have been subject to a best value notice, an independent review, a statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months covers a wide variety of activity in a strategic authority. There is a rigorous process and a very high bar for those authorities to get over. When we look at the established authorities that I mentioned in relation to the progress on where we are with these now, they have been in place for a long time. Some of them are requesting additional powers to do things that were not traditionally in the framework for mayoral authorities. It is important that that is a high bar for them to get over.
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, having an integrated settlement is an important step forward for those authorities. We hope that this will be a transformational process and that all the combined and combined county authorities will strive to get to that process once they have a mayor in place. We do not want it to be something that slips back. Let us hope that we can set these criteria, setting the bar high, which indicates the direction of travel we have for devolution, and move forward so that our authorities have the powers to do what they need to do locally.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting; I promise that this will be the last time. On the question of tourism revenue, if there is a tourism tax or whatever, what do we know about the arrangements for that? Is it the case that only established mayoral strategic authorities will be able to levy any kind of tourism tax because they have the financial governance and accountability arrangements established for this purpose—forgive the use of “established”, but the noble Baroness can see what I mean—or is there an intention that this would be a wider financial offering to strategic authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The tourism tax is an interesting step forward because, as far as I know, this is the first time a fiscal power has been devolved. The Government are keen to test out that devolution of fiscal power; I do not have the details at my fingertips so I will write to the noble Lord on the detail of how it is moving forward.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughtful amendments and comments. I also thank the Minister for her feedback, which has certainly provided some more illumination on a sometimes slightly murky area of devolution.
On integrated financial settlements, I know that, when I chaired the LGA, I pushed very hard to move in this direction. I was very pleased that we managed to get a couple of them over the line with the previous Government. They are important and offer huge benefits to the areas that have them. Therefore, this idea of criteria, and being very clear on them, is important; I thank the Minister for being clear that the White Paper is where the criteria are set out.
However, I am quibbling over and slightly uncomfortable with the fact that the criteria are just guidance for the Minister and could, therefore, be changed relatively easily. When you are talking about devolution, with local councils and local government making significant changes in anticipation of something that will potentially make a significant difference to their areas, those criteria must be very clear and not changeable. Councils must know what goal they are aiming for because, as the Minister said, this is not something that happens overnight; it takes several years, potentially, and a lot of effort. I do not want the goalposts to move too much—most local authorities would not want that, I think—so I would like some assurances, though not necessarily today, on how set in stone the criteria are as people go through the process.
I am also quite curious about the “no stepping back” bit. As the Minister said, we set some very high bars. However, the day after, someone might fail those high bars—but they are still there. A little elaboration on that at some later point would be very much appreciated.
With that, I thank noble Lords for the debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this group has a number of amendments in my name: Amendments 50A and 51B; Amendment 53A to Schedule 3; and Amendment 196A. There are two separate issues involved in these amendments; I will speak first to those that relate to the restrictions on the number and roles of commissioners.
Last week, we had a really useful debate on the areas of competence. In a sense, this debate shadows that because the commissioners are supposed to shadow the areas of competence. Those of us who were thinking about other areas of competence—in particular, the arts, culture and so on—were looking for some flexibility. These amendments seek similar flexibility in the related roles of commissioners.
New Section 29A, to be inserted by Clause 9, says that mayors may appoint up to seven people and that their functions align with the competence areas. This is potentially an unnecessary example of central control. I would argue that mayors should be free to appoint people to roles determined by them. Why do I think this? Because every area is very different and every area will have different priorities.
Broadly speaking, the areas of competence are wide-ranging. We were arguing that the arts and culture should be an additional area, but they could be within one of the areas of competence; this may mean that a mayor will wish to appoint an additional commissioner. I use this as an example because it is what we were debating last week. This issue is important because you need to bring in the right people for the right jobs, covering those areas of competence and where mayors will make a particular and special emphasis.
It also makes the devolution framework very rigid for the future, which is bad for two reasons. First, it would require primary legislation to enable a change in responsibilities and job titles, or to add more commissioners. Over time, I suspect there will be new priorities in different areas. Secondly, the restrictions would also prevent mayors appointing people to roles which they might want to fill, inhibiting the innovation we want to see from the devolution model—which, in general terms, I think we all applaud. For example, some already appoint active travel commissioners, who would either be out of scope in terms of the legislation or be prevented from continuing in their roles. The amendment, therefore, deals with this by getting rid of the restrictions.
Fewer restrictions would allow mayors to make commissioner appointments to different roles, depending on the needs of their own area, region, county or counties. For example, instead of a single transport and local infrastructure commissioner, we could see some areas appointing a bus commissioner or an active travel commissioner under these provisions; such appointments would still be subject to other scrutiny provisions on commissions contained in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Overall, this change would create the right kind of flexibility in the mayoral model, while keeping mayors responsible for keeping a lid on costs through transparency and scrutiny. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that we have to have restraints on costs, and I do not disagree with that.
My second area of interest in this group is the restrictions on mayoral political advisers; Amendment 196A deals with that issue and argues for mayoral special advisers. Currently, the central government model of transparency and flexibility on special adviser appointments has, I think we could fairly argue, been a success in balancing value for money for the taxpayer with the ability of Ministers to bring in the right level of expertise.
I recently read a really interesting book called Every Journey Matters, which looks at the history of the first 25 years of Transport for London. The thing that emerges very strongly from that account of TfL’s first 25 years is the quality of advice that TfL was able to tap about commissioners, support staff and, effectively, special advisers—though I do not think they were called that back in the day. All the mayors have drawn on that and, I think, benefitted from it. One could fairly argue that TfL is one of the most successful metropolitan transportation networks and systems in the world, and the quality of advice has made that difference.
Therefore, the model from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 should be applied to mayors, given their increasingly broad role and responsibility. There are three issues relating to the current system of appointments of political advisers by mayors. First, mayors are able to appoint political advisers only if it is covered in the relevant secondary legislation; in other words, they are governed by secondary legislation. Most mayors are allowed only one political adviser under relevant statutory instruments, which also cap the pay at the level of local government political assistance, which is something like £45,000. This opens the potential for differences which are unfair and need to be standardised. Secondly, there are no requirements for transparency on mayoral political adviser appointments or pay, unlike for government special advisers under the 2010 Act. Thirdly, there is no code of conduct for mayoral advisers, unlike for government special advisers, though the code of conduct is not required under primary legislation.
The amendment applies the central government model of special advisers to mayors; it would deal with these issues by allowing mayors to appoint mayoral special advisers, subject to an annual transparency requirement, and by their being paid in line with the relevant commissioner allowances, which the Bill already specifies should be determined by remuneration committees. It also moves away from the political adviser designation, so that mayors may be able to appoint special advisers to fulfil a variety of roles, just as Ministers are able to. Mayors can then bring in the people they need as they wish, subject to local oversight on pay and public scrutiny of the total cost, as we do with national government.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 51A and 52A in my name. I respect and agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about having some flexibility in the appointment of these different commissioners.
My amendment looks specifically at the commissioners for climate and nature. In particular, it seeks that these two topics do not just become a political football at the mercy of the political leanings of the mayor that is put in place. It is not enough to say that a mayor merely can appoint a person to oversee the delivery of one of the authority’s competencies; the mayor needs to appoint someone to oversee the delivery of the competencies outlined in Clause 2. That is especially important when we consider nature and climate, since both the 2008 Climate Change Act and the 2021 Environment Act have clear, unambiguous delivery targets, many of which are spatially constrained and require strategic oversight and consideration of competing land uses. We need someone in place who is able to oversee the delivery of these competencies strategically. The problem is that, currently, the duties in these Acts apply only to the Secretary of State, so there is an incredibly high risk that one of our most important delivery arms is under-deployed or at least deployed very unevenly, depending on the political swing or leanings of that mayoral authority.
Why is this so important? I calculated—on the back of an envelope, I admit—the amount of land the six new mayoral districts and the combined areas will be responsible for. It is 75% of the English landscape. This is not a small amount: we are talking about the biggest part of our landscape. Therefore, this should really make us stop and think whether we have the right safeguards in place to ensure the delivery of climate and nature targets if the political leanings of the mayor are not that way inclined.
Of course, it should be for the mayors to appoint whom they wish as commissioners, but it is also important to note that we need them to appoint commissioners in certain areas where they have relevant experience or expertise. Although I accept that it would be the responsibility of the mayor of an area to decide how to develop an action policy, we need to put in place some safeguards to ensure that central government’s policy priorities and legal responsibilities are delivered.
I am going to give a few examples of the importance of a commissioner for nature and climate. The first, as we heard about before in the previous discussion, is local nature recovery strategies. These are full of potential, but now, as they reach implementation stage, there is a risk they will sit on the shelf, for two reasons: first, because of the challenge of integrating decision-making in local government; and secondly, because of the need to organise co-ordinated action at scale.
Environmental skills is another issue. They are commonly and widely recognised as a bottleneck; we do not have the people who are able to help our planning officers to make the decisions needed in the planning system. Lack of skills in planning control and enforcement is a really big risk to delivering on things such as biodiversity net gain right now; only 5% of local authorities say that they have adequate resources properly to manage biodiversity net gain. To deliver and fill those gaps, we need skills and education programmes that are co-ordinated and have oversight at the strategic levels. It is highly unlikely that any of these areas of competence for strategic authorities would see the skills gap as part of their portfolio. I cannot see any of those competences thinking that they should focus on employing people or on education programmes; I would see this sitting under a commissioner for climate and nature.
Finally comes the issue of green infrastructure planning, which many of us discussed in the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the delivery of nature-based solutions and protecting and restoring the UK’s natural capital assets. This requires some large-scale spatial co-ordination actions—for example, the Environment Act targets to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, and ambitions for nature-based solutions for flood defence. All of that will require strategic interventions and top-down leadership, and to be under a dedicated, named person. Who is going to do it if, within a mayoral system, there is no one with that title who can oversee and manage nature and climate?
At the same time, these large-scale conventional infrastructure projects—I know that one of our noble friends works in the Oxford–Cambridge Arc—require large-scale nature plans to ensure that they do not destroy large swathes of nature and critical natural capital assets. That is something we often forget about when we think about nature recovery.
I would like to zoom out a bit on this one. It is worth remembering that in a report last year about the role of natural capital in the UK’s green economy, the Environmental Audit Committee found that while natural capital assets are an essential foundation of the UK and global economy, there is little evidence of that being considered in decision-making. So, while the amendment does not specifically deal with natural capital, it would ensure that somebody at the top was considering and responsible for oversight of this in the new authority.
I make one more point about natural capital. It is not just a “nice to have”. In November, the ONS released its reports, valuing natural capital assets in the UK at £1.6 trillion. This is not just about the pretty flowers somewhere—this is serious infrastructure. Natural infrastructure underpins so many things we rely on. The annual value of £41 billion in natural capital assets was largely driven by health benefits gained from recreation. So, it comes back to us needing a commissioner at the top who looks at these figures and at what we need to do to deliver on the ground. Devolved government is a fantastic idea, and I am a huge supporter of it, but we need the right people in the right place to deliver what I believe they can deliver.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what the Government’s intention is here. Do they think there should be a commissioner for each of the competences? Given that there are seven competences and seven commissioners, I would think that the answer is yes, although I am not sure any more—maybe it should be more. If they do not think they should state that in statute, why? What situation are they allowing for if we get in a political situation whereby the mayor does not support nature and climate as part of our infrastructure? That is a very big risk that we should look at in this Bill now.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to six amendments, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 and 171. As this is my first and may even be my last contribution, I want to express straightaway that I welcome the Bill very warmly. It gives mayors new powers to appoint commissioners, to increase capacity and to maximise the benefits of devolution. Obviously, mayors will have to consider carefully how best to use these directly appointed roles, drawing on the right expertise and ensuring value for money.
I also welcome the Government’s approach to entrusting directly elected mayors to make decisions on commissioner appointments tailored to local needs. However, these amendments seek to make some pragmatic changes that would improve the Bill by giving—vitally—greater flexibility on shaping commissioner roles. All my amendments go to that greater flexibility on shaping commissioner roles and appointments so that they are suitable for the specific circumstances of their region.
I will briefly outline three such issues, to which I will ask the Government to consider making changes. First, in relation to my Amendment 171, the Bill could enable greater flexibility for the appointment of deputy mayors for policing and crime under mayors that will be responsible for more than one police force area. As the Committee may know, I speak as a former Leicestershire police and crime commissioner. Although I may have mixed feelings about the Government’s decision to abolish police and crime commissioners, I am enough of a realist to realise that it is a done deal—it will happen—so we have to talk about the future, and I am happy to do so. Speaking as a former PCC, I recognise the importance of effective democratic oversight and accountability for our police forces in this new world that we are undoubtedly moving into.
The integration of police and fire services under mayors will improve democratic accountability and enable better integration of these services with wider mayoral functions. The Bill will enable the transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to mayors whose boundaries are coterminous with one or more PCC areas, and for most PCC functions to be delegated to a deputy mayor for policing and crime. In the east Midlands, this means that Derbyshire PCC and Nottinghamshire PCC functions transferring to the Mayor of the East Midlands, because the boundaries of the two PCC areas are coterminous with the East Midlands Combined County Authority.
Importantly, the Government also intend to transfer fire and rescue authority functions to mayors too. For the east Midlands, the Government have committed to explore merging the Derbyshire FRA and Nottinghamshire FRA, so that the East Midlands Combined County Authority becomes the fire and rescue authority for the area. I will return to that point in a moment.
As drafted, however, the Bill risks limiting the full potential of this integration, where a mayor takes on PCC functions for more than one police force. This means that a deputy mayor for policing and crime must be appointed for each police force area, so there will be two deputy mayors where there are two police forces. There are good reasons why a mayor may want to appoint a deputy mayor for each police force, including to ensure effective oversight and scrutiny of complex organisations. However, in some cases, a single deputy mayor for policing and crime—or a single deputy mayor for public safety, including fire—may enable better integration and join-up across services.
That is particularly the case—this is the main argument for this in this area—where a mayor may be responsible for two police forces and one fire and rescue authority. For example, it would be impracticable to have a deputy mayor responsible for fire across the whole region but for only one of the two police forces. Therefore, my Amendment 171 to Schedule 22 seeks to ensure that, where a mayor may be responsible for more than one police force area, they would have the flexibility to appoint a single deputy mayor or separate deputy mayors for each police force. I invite the Minister to think carefully about whether this is a sensible proposal to make this part of the Bill marginally more flexible.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting set of amendments so far, but what strikes me about them is that they all seem to run counter to the principle of election—be that either direct or indirect election—and we need to be very careful about that.
I have given notice to oppose that Clause 9 stands part of the Bill for two reasons. First, elections are important for public posts that require the expenditure of large sums of public money. I believe that most of those positions should be elected. Secondly, there is a huge absence of detail in the proposal within new paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 for the appointment and scrutiny of commissioners.
The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 74 states that commissioners will be,
“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”.
I have difficulty understanding quite how they will be independent if they are made by and accountable to the mayor and function, as the Explanatory Notes explain in the same paragraph, as “extensions of the mayor”. Can the Minister say in what way they are independent and why “independent” does not appear in this paragraph? The Explanatory Notes then state:
“Commissioners would not replace elected members”—
and there has already been a debate about that as part of this group, but they then say that areas—whatever an area is defined as—will,
“have the freedom to use a combination of commissioners and elected members to lead on different areas depending on what works best for them”.
Will the Minister say who makes the decision about whether elected members have the capacity to lead an area of competence, whether that decision made by the mayor alone and will the appointment of commissioners be public appointments, subject to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the posts will be advertised and subject to equal opportunities legislation. Will there be an agreed job description and a person specification? Will there be competitive interviews or is it all a matter, in practice, for mayoral patronage? Will councillors of constituent councils be able to scrutinise the full-time commissioners—for they are full-time appointments—that the mayor may decide to appoint?
Schedule 3 states that:
“The mayor must determine the terms and conditions of a person’s appointment as a commissioner”.
Can the Minister tell us what scrutiny is planned about what those terms and conditions actually are?
We should just note that the appointment of a commissioner will end when the mayor’s term of office comes to an end. That means that a mayor who decides to resign will cause all the commissioners they have appointed to lose their jobs, which are, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, full-time jobs. It seems that the clear implication of the wording of the Bill is that if a mayor was to quit the post, all those appointed by the mayor would have to leave. I seek the Minister’s clarification of that point, for that is my reading of Clause 9 and Schedule 3.
I have noted that commissioners cannot approve local growth plans, local transport plans or spatial development strategy, but they are writing them, planning them and will be advising the mayor on them. I understand the formality of a decision to approve a plan, but what the plan is and how it has got there will clearly be heavily dependent upon the commissioner.
I understand that:
“The mayor must obtain the consent of the CCA to any arrangement for a commissioner to exercise a function”,
but does that extend to the appointments process itself? I wonder why there is no discussion by the Government of using the professional expertise of local government officers. So, not only are the Government dispensing with the ballot box in terms of any form of direct election to strategic authorities, but they are simply leaving an election of a mayor, following which we simply have a world of appointments. I am very concerned about what that means. I ask myself, “Whatever happened to the primacy of the ballot box?” because commissioners will not be elected, so voters will have no say in their appointment because the electorate will elect a only mayor and will have no role after that. Indeed, unlike with a Member of Parliament, the electorate will have no power of recall of a mayor.
We then have Amendment 196A in this group on special advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about them, but I have not understood the difference between a full-time commissioner and a special adviser. The noble Lord talked about a special adviser having professional expertise. I understand that professional advice is needed—of course it is—but I have not understood what is wrong with professional local government officers, with their expertise in the areas that might, at the moment, be proposed for a commissioner.
There are a lot of very important questions for the Minister to answer. The level of expenditure has been mentioned twice so far this afternoon, and the consequent level of the precept, which might then be high. We must be really careful about this and not duplicate. I remember, because I was around when metropolitan counties were abolished and we moved to joint boards, that the expertise in each of the areas of concern we have proposed was held by an individual local authority that had a lot of officers dealing with that specific policy area on behalf of everybody else. The joint boards had councillors; I was privileged to serve as a councillor on a number of those joint boards at different times.
I just do not think that the Government have gone far enough in examining how to deliver some of their proposals on, say, local transport, which used to function in Tyne and Wear with a joint board. What exactly is the problem with that? As I said last week, I fear that we have upwards mission drift in this Bill, taking powers away from established local government. I believe that to be true, but I also think that we are in danger of reinventing processes that have previously worked pretty well. I do not think that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 can stand here without us challenging what the Government intend to do because there is already a demand in this group for us to have yet more commissioners.
I am, by the way, in favour of culture’s status being raised—it is absolutely correct to do that—but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that every area of concern should have a commissioner. Indeed, that is not the Minister’s proposal. The Government are not proposing that that should happen because there will be a mixture of commissioners, with the elected leaders of the councils of the combined authority and the strategic authority.
I shall stop there, but I hope that the Minister can allay some of my concerns around the failure of the Bill to have anything worth reading in it and with nearly everything that is going to happen next coming in the form of guidance. As I said last week, I would be happier if I knew a little more about what the Government are thinking in terms of guidance.
With that, I shall respond at some point when we come to the right moment, but I very much hope that the Minister will take on board some of my comments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said. I have been unhappy with much of Clause 9 since I first read it, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends have to say about it, because they have also added their names to the intention from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to oppose the Question that the clause stands part.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said before, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Before I speak to my Amendment 221, I will discuss this group more broadly. As my noble friend the Minister has demonstrated, local government is better placed than Whitehall to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; place-based regeneration that is owned and directed by local people; effective skills training for local high-GDP jobs in emerging local industries; industry relevance coupled with creative thinking; and creativity, which is the linking of ideas to technique. As my noble friend said, what is important is politics being done with communities, not to them. Every child should have access to quality green space, clean air and a creative education. Who can plan better the walking pram distance to a school than a local parent or carer?
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on spatial planning, my years as chair of economic development in Liverpool City Council came flooding back. I know that Liverpool City Region is looking forward to the opportunities of tourism tax, and indeed we should consider whether this will work and how it can go further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, advocated so convincingly last week, devolution done well should and can build social cohesion and inclusion. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that culture may be considered as a competence.
Having represented combined local authorities in the European Parliament, I have had the pleasure of witnessing how devolved strategic government can mobilise regeneration, growth and job creation, and provide better access to public services, including affordable and—I hope—accessible green transport. The only way forward with hydrogen is green. I firmly believe that no city, town or rural community should be left behind, as has sadly been the case so far. We must afford these opportunities of well-audited devolution further and create an exchange of practice between regions and sub-regions to share learning, both on what is good and on where to avoid mistakes.
Amendment 221 is technical but also practical, widening the pool from which an elected mayor can appoint a deputy mayor. Current rules tightly limit who a regional mayor can appoint as deputy: only members of their cabinet, except for exceptional circumstances—that is, the leaders of the constituent local authorities. This new clause would amend Section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority’s members of the combined or strategic authority, thus widening the pool both of choice, and, as others have said, expertise. Among the wide opportunities afforded by the Bill, I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be quite brief and will make a point of principle to start with. If something is important enough to be an additional area of competence, it should have a dedicated commissioner to go with it, which is in line with what the Government have done so far. I say that at the outset.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given us an intriguing, rather creative amendment in terms of flexibility, but I have a couple of concerns. I know that the noble Lord is an enlightened individual arts-wise, who I am sure would like to see—like me—the arts, culture and heritage thrive in the new strategic areas. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I pointed out last week in the debate on my Amendment 6, not all councils are quite so enlightened. Even if every mayor was conscientious enough today to ensure that their strategic authority did everything it could for the arts, culture and heritage—I say this simply as an example of an area of concern rather than competence—there is no guarantee that those who follow would have the same commitment unless there was a statutory commitment. This is very much in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, was saying earlier. I very much support Amendment 51A in her name, and the other amendments that she proposed as well.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support the amendments in this group that seek to remove the cap on the number of commissioners and the appointment of special advisers. In doing so, I restate my support for Amendments 6, 10 and 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to add the arts and culture as an area of competence, which would allow a modest increase in the number of commissioners from seven to eight.
I fully recognise that the Government wish to maintain a coherent and settled devolution framework, to limit additional costs that such appointments would incur and to exercise caution around unelected roles. Here I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those numerous and very important questions.
I also accept the argument that further powers may be pursued within the existing areas of competence. That said, the question here is one of governance rather than architecture. A small degree of flexibility in the commissional model, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, have argued for, would allow mayors to organise their leadership teams and their advisers in ways that reflect local priorities and circumstances without altering the framework itself.
Different regions face very different challenges: a dense metropolitan authority and a largely rural combined county authority may reasonably require different internal arrangements. For those reasons, I generally support these amendments and the flexibility they seek to introduce.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated. It does appear to be the first one today where we are not quite in agreement on things. I assure my noble friend Lord Trenchard that we share his concerns about appointing unelected commissioners to roles that have real political power. However, before I go on to that, this raises an important and enduring question about how leadership is accountable and the flexibility to operate within a system that is devolved.
At its heart, this debate returns to the principles of devolution. It is about not just transferring powers from the centre to the local level but about who exercises those powers. It is about how they are held to account and how clearly responsibility is understood by the public whom those institutions are designed to serve.
On the amendments, while the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a good case, we have concerns about commissioners holding responsibility for multiple areas of confidence because there is a risk that it could reduce accountability, concentrating authority into too few hands and blurring the lines of responsibility, making it harder for the public to discern who is ultimately answerable for decisions—there may be cases that need further thought in this area. I also accept the noble Lord’s points about police authorities. With the recent announcement in the other place, can the Minister say whether that is being taken into account in the devolution Bill or, even better, whether that announcement is going to take account of the devolution Bill? That is rather important.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, devolution works best when responsibilities are clear, visible and capable of effective scrutiny. I have a real concern here, which has been shared by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. First, I will talk about commissioners. What is the definition of a commissioner? Working in local government, when you say that the commissioners are coming in, while I personally am not used to a failing council, normally you send them in after a best value inspection when one is failing. We have had this issue several times in the devolution Bill, and definitions and consistency of definitions would be helpful.
However, the real concern about commissioners is that we seem to have an expanding strategy. The Bill talks about seven but now we have amendments that talk about political advisers, special advisers and more deputy mayors. My focus in local government is value for money. Local government and mayors should be about delivering services to residents. They should not be about creating an unelected bureaucracy that is appointed and risks political cronyism. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also raised a number of practical issues such as whether when the mayor resigns all the commissioners go and you lose all that knowledge and so forth. I will not go on to those again, because that would be unnecessary repetition, but we have a real concern.
A number of noble Lords raised an issue around whether we can have commissioners for specific areas. I have sympathy with that, but they do not have to be commissioners. We are talking about political leads for certain areas. There is no reason why an elected councillor cannot be a political lead, whether it is for rural affairs, the environment, culture and so forth. I do not think that we have to focus on commissioners there—that can be a political lead.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on mayoral commissioners and for the wide-ranging debate that we have had on the subject.
Before I respond to any individual amendments, I want to reiterate why the Government are introducing commissioners. I completely understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on title and definition. I must say, I asked myself the same question on the potential confusion around commissioners who are sent to do a job when an authority is failing and these types of commissioners; we have to think carefully about that.
As I have set out, the Bill will empower our mayors with wide-ranging new powers over transport planning and local growth, so they can drive growth across their region, and powers over health and public safety, so that they can deliver the public service reform that the public expect to see. These are critical functions, and it is not reasonable to expect a mayor to do all of them. That is why we have introduced commissioners—an optional appointment to whom mayors can delegate functions to support them in their work. Mayors will be able to appoint up to seven commissioners, aligned to the areas of competence and reflecting areas of responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, mayors can also appoint members of the combined county authority or combined authority as portfolio holders, of course; they will also have officials to support their work, such as finance officials, legal officials and so on.
Let me be clear: this is not about inviting a proliferation of appointments. Rather, it is about mayors having capacity to deliver against the full range of their functions and giving them flexibility in how they deliver for their area. Local authority leaders who are on the combined authority will be able to support the mayor as portfolio holders; do not forget, though, that it is important to remember that they will have their own authorities to lead as well, so they will be working in their own authority at the same time.
On Amendments 51A and 52A, I reiterate that commissioners are an optional appointment: they are designed to increase capacity and give mayors more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their areas. These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, would remove that optionality, effectively introducing seven new statutory roles in the combined authority or combined county authority. We have set out the competency, for example on the environment and climate change, in the Bill itself, but mayors are best placed to determine whether they need additional support on this based on the needs of their local area.
While we have set out in the competencies what we think mayors should be doing, it cannot be right that we make the choice for them about how they do that. Therefore, it is for mayors to decide. I know this can be difficult for us in the political process when a mayor may put an emphasis on an area that would be less important to us than something else, but I am afraid that is part of the democratic process that we live with all the time; it is not that different.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I just do not understand this. If I am a leader of a local authority and I have a specific need for a competence, I employ an official or an officer. I interview a large range of them; I do not go to one of my mates and ask if they would like to be a commissioner. I do not understand why that should be any different in a mayoral office. If they are doing work that demands somebody extremely well-qualified in a specific arts project, they can employ an officer or official. It does not need to be a commissioner who has a connotation of being politically motivated, as well as being possibly qualified in that area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay. If I do not answer the noble Baroness’s question, I will come back to it.
Amendments 50A, 51B and 53A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam, seek to remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by the mayor. It is important that mayors have the support they need from specialists to deliver for their constituents. However, we believe the Bill strikes the right balance, ensuring that mayors have the capacity to deliver without inviting a proliferation of appointments.
For this reason, I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment 196A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. This amendment would enable mayors to appoint mayoral special advisers and would include provisions regarding their appointment, function and code of conduct. It would also exempt these advisers from holding a politically restricted post under a local authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I agree that mayors can benefit from advice that they trust aligns with their politics. Political advisers bring important expertise that helps mayors formulate their strategy, policy decisions and communications approach. That is why mayors can already appoint a political adviser, and our current position is to provide new mayoralties with that option too.
However, these advisers will be subject to political restrictions in the same way existing advisers are. Accountability in public office is of paramount importance, which is why we have existing guardrails in place. The cap ensures that spending remains proportionate to the institution and prevents a proliferation of political appointments. On my noble friend Lord Bassam’s point on the code of conduct, mayors’ special advisers, where appointed, are employees of the strategic authority, and therefore they would be covered by the strategic authority’s code of conduct.
Amendments 54, 55, 58, 59, 57 and 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, seek to enable commissioners’ work or the delegation of function to relate to more than one area of competence. The amendments also seek to allow two or more commissioners to relate to the same area of competence. I thank my noble friend for these amendments, and I reassure him that the mayor will already have the flexibility to consider local circumstances when considering a commissioner’s exact brief and any delegated functions relating to the area of competence.
The Bill states that a commissioner’s work or functions can relate to other areas of competence and matters outside of them where it is incidental to the work in their special area of competence. For example, a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead on a growth strategy that included elements related to housing, skills and transport.
Amendment 171, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach, seeks to ensure that, where a mayor is responsible for more than one police force, they would have the flexibility to appoint a single deputy mayor or separate deputy mayors for each police force. As I have set out, the Bill already ensures that the mayor has support in exercising police governance functions in each of the police forces for which they have responsibility, and it recognises that these forces remain distinct and separate entities. The provisions in the Bill will prevent the same person from being appointed to more than one deputy mayor for police and crime positions, ensuring that there is a dedicated lead for the day-to-day oversight of policing in each force area.
My noble friend will know that I worked in policing for many years, and I am very aware of the different policing challenges that can occur even in neighbouring forces: the balance of different types of crime—rural and urban—and some of the more internal issues around different IT systems, and so on. That seems appropriate at the moment. Our right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke very powerfully about her view that there needs to be further reorganisation of policing, and we should of course work across government as we move forward with the Bill to work with her to identify her ideas and how that might be implemented in this. But I appreciate that she was talking about some of this being implemented some way off, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.
For the moment, this amendment would impact the direct line of accountability the mayor is able to provide to voters regarding the police forces which they are required to hold to account. I will reflect on his call for flexibility around this, and I think we need to have further discussions with the Home Office about how this will work moving forward.
Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, would enable a mayor of a combined authority to appoint any councillor of a constituent council in a combined authority area as deputy mayor. I want to clarify with her that I have understood her amendment properly, because I think she said something slightly different from what is in the amendment itself. The mayor can appoint members of the constituent authorities who sit on the combined authority in portfolio holder roles, but they cannot appoint any member of the constituent authority. I just clarify that.
The position of deputy mayor is a significant responsibility, which could involve stepping in to chair the authority and undertaking mayoral functions. That is why, currently, only those constituent councillors who have been appointed as a member of the combined authority may be appointed as a deputy mayor. These members have been appointed by the council to the authority in the knowledge that this may involve taking on the deputy mayor role, so they have the legitimacy to perform it if called upon. It is important that we keep measures in place to ensure that a deputy mayor is a legitimate appointment, best prepared for the demands they will face should they have to step in as mayor. Because this amendment applies only to combined authorities, technically it would create a divergence between the requirements imposed on them, versus combined county authorities.
The remaining amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to remove Clause 9 and Schedule 3. This would eliminate the role of commissioners from the Bill, preventing their appointment by mayors. As I have stated, commissioners are intended to increase mayors capacity and give them more flexibility in how they deliver for their area. These authorities will have critical new functions to undertake, requiring representation on national bodies, joint working with partners and access to the expertise they need. It is simply not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. These appointments will be a local decision, and no additional funding will be provided.
I will now cover some of the questions that have been asked by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others. Starting with the question about commissioners being simply devolution to unelected officials, commissioners are optional and can be appointed only by the mayor, who determines their terms and conditions. They will work in lockstep with the mayor to drive forward the policy agenda for a specific function, such as transport or public health. This will be particularly effective where a commissioner has specialist knowledge and expertise that can help deliver the mayor’s vision for local people. There is a real difference here between employed officials of a local council, for example, and what these commissioners will do. The best example I can give is the way that these positions work in London, where the mayor has a number of deputy mayors, as they are called, who act for the mayor in certain policy areas.
The mayor, the combined county authority and the overview and scrutiny committee will each play a role in the commissioner’s appointment and/or the termination of their appointment. We will set out guidance, following Royal Assent, on recruitment and job descriptions. Responding to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I say that these commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles, as employees of strategic authorities. Commissioners will also fall under the strengthened accountability system for devolution, which will confirm further details in due course; we are likely to have further discussions about that later this evening.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
With voting, the figure required can be either two-thirds or 50:50. Can the Minister clarify what figure is required to remove a commissioner?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
For the overview and scrutiny committee, I believe it is a simple majority vote, but I will clarify that in writing for the noble Lord.
We expect that commissioners will have detailed knowledge and expertise in their assigned area of competence and will be appointed on this basis. Constituent members will not necessarily be experienced in their portfolio subject area. There are also circumstances where it would not be appropriate for a portfolio lead to represent both the borough and the region; there may be perceived conflicts of interest. As I said earlier, the local authority leaders who sit on the combined authority will also be running their councils on a day-to-day basis.
Commissioners will be able to represent the mayor’s authority and policy positions in a given area, including by speaking to the media. They could help make day-to-day decisions that are delegated by a mayor and provide strategic insight and advice for their area of expertise. We also expect commissioners to play a leading role in stakeholder engagement and partnership working, across geographies and organisations, as appropriate. This would include working closely with local councillors, business leaders and public sector institutions, using their advocacy and influence to deliver the mayor’s agenda.
I hope that that has helped clarify some of the points raised by noble Lords and that, with the assurances I have given, they will not press their amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
If there are any matters raised by me or other noble Lords that the Minister did not cover, could she send a letter to cover them? I do not think I heard confirmation about the Nolan principles, for example. If there is anything else, I hope that officials might draft something for her to send.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I did confirm that the commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles. I will go back over Hansard—I always do after these debates—and if I have missed anything, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating debate. It has made me think a lot about the history of local government and how it has changed over 150 or 160 years. There was a time when we had aldermen, but they were abolished. We have had two-tier government, county boroughs and so on, but things have changed there too. The introduction of commissioners is a very progressive move, so I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, on that point. I can see that the accountability framework for commissioners is very important; they will have a powerful job.
If we think about it, some of those combined mayoral authorities will cover large geographical areas. My own likely combined mayoral authority involves East and West Sussex, which is about 100 miles from one end to the other and about 50 miles wide—and East Anglia covers a similarly large geographical area. It is right that we have these commissioners appointed and can hold them to account, because they will have a very important job to do. That is one reason why I thought that introducing some flexibility in terms of the patch or territory they cover, or the policies, was so important. However, I have heard what the Minister has said about that, and I hope we can reflect on some of those issues before Report.
On the points I made about political advisers and special advisers, I simply say this: again, it relates to the size of the task in front of mayors and commissioners. The salary is some £45,000 a year, which is generous but not pitched at a level one would necessarily expect to attract the very best. We need to have good quality political advisers involved in these strategic mayoral authorities. In my time as a local government leader, I did not see fit to have a political adviser—I got more than enough political advice from the Labour group, daily, and sometimes beyond that. But political advisers and special advisers are of immense value. When I first became a Minister back in 1999, what the civil servants used to say to me that was of value was that they had access to a special adviser who understood the thinking of the Secretary of State and their Ministers. That is really important, and that is why I thought it worth having a discussion about introducing special advisers into these very large strategic mayoral authorities. However, I have heard what the Minister said about that, and I shall reflect on it some more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Scrutiny of mayoral commissioners(1) The mayor of a combined county authority must establish, for each commissioner appointed by the mayor, a scrutiny committee composed of elected members of the constituent local authorities.(2) The purpose of each scrutiny committee is to review, assess and report on the exercise of the policy responsibilities of the commissioner to whom it relates.(3) Each scrutiny committee must have the following powers—(a) to require the mayor, the relevant commissioner, or any member of their staff to attend before the committee to give evidence;(b) to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of the commissioner’s functions;(c) to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations.(4) The mayor and the relevant commissioner must have regard to any report or recommendation made by the corresponding scrutiny committee under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Mayor of a Combined County Authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the Mayor’s exercise of functions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 53 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. This amendment is about how you scrutinise mayoral commissioners. I noted what the Minister said in responding to the previous group about the mayor or combined authority members being responsible for scrutinising commissioners, yet that removes any responsibility on the constituent authorities to undertake scrutiny. It is doubly important that elected members of the constituent local authorities have some powers in scrutinising the work of a commissioner. They will need powers to do that—to require the mayor and relevant commissioner or indeed any member of their staff to attend and give evidence—so it can be a requirement to attend rather than a request to attend, and there should be an ability to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of a commissioner’s function.
There should then be a right to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations, with an absolute power to do so; it would not be for the combined authority or the mayor to say that this matter cannot be published. It is really a fundamental matter about who is in a position to scrutinise what mayors do.
Can I make just two points about scrutiny, which will come up later in our deliberations? The best form of scrutiny is one that happens before the decision is made, not one that comments on a decision after it has been made. The best way in which to deliver that objective is through a committee system, because a committee system actually authorises decisions to be made and has the major advantage that the scrutiny is happening at the same time as a decision is made.
I have found it very disappointing in the Bill that quite so much is being said about the committee system and its perceived failures, most of which I do not recognise. It may be that when we get to further discussions in Committee and then on Report, further consideration can be given to those matters. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the Government do not downplay the importance of scrutiny, particularly when so many issues and so much public money is involved in the proposals to devolve power to mayors and commissioners. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 191, and, in doing so, declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The amendment would provide for the establishment in every local area of a local public accounts committee to ensure the effective scrutiny and accountability across the whole range of public service spending and activity in that area, not just the actions of the strategic authority or the mayor. So why is an amendment like this necessary?
During the past 40 years we have seen in this country a radical fragmentation of our public services with the establishment of a myriad disconnected, sometimes single-purpose agencies. Sadly, these have too often worked in isolation, seeking to achieve their own specific targets energetically, but on occasions their efforts have conflicted or overlapped with their partners. They have too often worked in silos and, sadly, regulators have been very slow to recognise and challenge that. As a result, the public often struggle to access or even make sense of the disjointed services which this system has produced. In addition, resources are wasted because of the overlap and duplication, bureaucracy thrives, and there is inevitably a culture of competition rather than collaboration. This needs to change, but I do not believe that, as drafted, the Bill alone will achieve that level of change. If we are adequately to integrate public services in a locality, all public service providers and partners have to build co-operation into everything they do.
A later amendment in my name seeks to impose a duty on all local public partners to do just that. But alongside that kind of duty we also need to put in place local accountability—and not always accountability to the centre, which has been the model we have followed for so long. We need more local accountability to ensure that genuine co-operation does take place, so that services are delivered which are actually recognisable to ordinary local people and which meet their needs effectively.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rather suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I are fishing in a similar pool here. My Amendment 196B is all about local accounting officers and is designed to help to improve the level of scrutiny and accountability for each mayoral strategic authority.
The system of departmental accounting officers and their requirement to appear before the Public Accounts Committee is often used to justify value for money—an issue that could prevent proper devolution—but this is because accounting officers are technically meant to be able to justify all spending even if, in reality, the decision to devolve to a different authority has been made. With the development of the new combined mayoral authority model, we need to learn from those models being used by the devolved Administrations where accounting officers’ responsibilities have been given to the relevant bodies.
This amendment would look to devolve AO responsibilities to new local accounting officers, who would be local and accountable to the relevant authority’s scrutiny bodies for any spending by an established mayoral strategic authority. This is loosely based on the relevant legislation for Welsh accounting officers. The relevant body here might include a local public accounts committee; the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, made the case for that.
This amendment is designed to be helpful. The Minister may say that it is unnecessary but, in my view, it would be a genuine move towards devolved accountability—in terms of models of funding and allowing places to innovate while retaining an appropriate level of scrutiny. With the development of devolved mayoral combined authorities, we need an extra layer of accountability that looks at the way in which public money is spent. For too long, local government has been burdened with more responsibility, less funding and fewer opportunities to innovate and develop; at the same time, to my way of looking at things, local authority accounting practices have not really moved on from where they were in the 1990s. This amendment is an attempt to be helpful, very much in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, spoke to his amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will make a brief comment on Amendment 196B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which is worth discussing further, especially given how it fits with Amendment 191 from the Lord, Lord Bichard, which I strongly support.
The question I asked myself, perhaps trying to anticipate the Minister’s response, was: would it duplicate existing audit and scrutiny arrangements? I came to the conclusion that I do not believe that it would. Audit answers the questions of whether the accounts were properly kept and whether the acceptable processes and procedures were legally carried out. But this amendment addresses a different and much more important question: is public money being spent effectively across the whole system? Audit is retrospective, siloed and looks at individual organisations after the event. Local public accounts committees, as proposed in this amendment, would look across organisations in real time. They would look at how councils, mayors and public service partners are actually working together—they are not the same things.
The Bill deliberately—and correctly, in my view—will push power and spending into shared collaborative arrangements, but our scrutiny remains fragmented, organisation by organisation. This mismatch is the gap that Amendment 191 would fill. Without it, no one body would be clearly responsible for asking very basic questions such as: is it the case that joint working is working? Is it delivering value? Are overlapping budgets aligned with agreed priorities? Are partnerships working as intended? Audit does not do that—and scrutiny committees, as currently structured, will struggle to do that.
In contrast, this amendment would enable that. It is not more bureaucracy; it is better oversight. It is not another unnecessary new layer. The amendment is enabling, not prescriptive, and it allows Ministers to integrate these committees within existing audit and scrutiny frameworks. It provides coherence and not clutter, and in fact good system-level scrutiny actually reduces duplication by exposing it.
My main reason for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is that devolution without strong, visible accountability risks undermining public confidence. If power and money are exercised at a mayoral strategic level, scrutiny must exist at that same level. Otherwise, we are asking people to trust structures they cannot see being properly examined.
In conclusion, Amendment 191 strengthens the Bill by aligning power, spending and accountability. It complements audit and scrutiny; it does not replace them. In fact, the financial cost of not having effective system-wide scrutiny could lead to duplicated programmes, misaligned budgets and failed collaboration, which will almost certainly cost a lot more than the modest investment required to make this work well. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will give both ideas serious consideration.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support the principle of Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I observe that, for the first time, we are bringing local, parish and community councils substantially into scope, for I believe that the definitions provided in Amendment 191 will do so. What has not been fully understood is that one of the second-order effects of the Bill is that it will create a significant number of larger community councils as a result.
As a result of local government reorganisation, large numbers of cities, such as Oxford, Exeter and Norwich, and former county boroughs, such as Ipswich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, which have been billing authorities hitherto, will now fall into the lower tier of local authorities. Those authorities have no constraint or cap on the amount of council tax that they can raise. In Salisbury, they have jacked up council tax by 44% in the past four years—they have let rip, and it is not good enough. There has been no scrutiny, there has been cost shunting, and the council tax payers have paid more.
I have laid amendments, which we will discuss later, that will make provision for those larger smaller authorities to fall under the constraints that all the other authorities will have. I do not seek to fetter the smallest parish council, but if you have a population that hitherto has been part of a billing authority, it is right that they should be constrained going forward, as they have in the past.
I am not sure that I entirely welcome all the provisions in Amendment 191 on local public accounts committees, but the amendment shines a light for the first time on where we will go with these smaller community parish councils. There is merit in the thrust of what has been proposed here. I wait to hear how the Minister reacts to what constraints will be placed on this new class of large parish or town council as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will take a step back to reflect on what this debate is really about. It is not simply about committees, processes or institutional design—it is about trust that power, once devolved, will be exercised well; trust that decisions will be open to challenge; and trust that the public will be able to see how and why those decisions are taken.
Amendment 53, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speaks directly to that question. The requirement for mayors to establish scrutiny committees for commissioners recognises a simple but important truth: as we add layers of responsibility and delegation within combined county authorities, scrutiny cannot remain an afterthought. If commissioners are to exercise real influence, there must be clear, visible and credible mechanisms through which their actions can be examined, questioned and, where necessary, challenged. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government envisage scrutiny operating in practice where commissioners are appointed and whether they are confident that existing arrangements will suffice.
Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard proposes local public accounts committees. The noble Lord has raised a very important point: there has been a tremendous amount of devolution, just not to local government but to unelected quangos and devolved bodies. Anyone who has led a council will tell you how much difficulty they have trying to get those bodies to do things that are best for the local area because they have to report to Whitehall. This is an interesting proposal to try to oblige those bodies to work together with local government. I do not seek to speak specifically to that design—more to question of principle, because it goes back to the heart of scrutiny as we have more devolution and deal with these other devolved bodies. How will the Government ensure that appropriate scrutiny happens across an area where not only the combined authority but those other bodies are essential to deliver some of those services? As I said, local public accounts committees are one possible solution, and I am very interested in seeing what the Government’s suggestion on that is.
I also press the Minister on a number of broader points. First, has the department assessed whether existing local scrutiny arrangements are adequate for the scale and complexity of devolved expenditure now envisaged? Secondly, what assessment of the fiscal governance risks that arise when large multiyear funding settlements are devolved without strengthened independent financial oversight at the local level? As was raised earlier, how do the Government intend to identify problems earlier rather than having the audit function of explaining what went wrong afterwards?
Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the question of cost—not simply its narrow budgetary terms but the strategic ones. If the Government do not believe that local public accounts committees are the right answer, what is the solution? If we are serious about devolving power, responsible scrutiny must sit alongside it, not trail behind it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments relating to accountability and scrutiny, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is recovering.
Starting with Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, there is already an existing system of scrutiny that provides accountability to the public and local checks and balances and accountability to government, including a requirement for combined authorities and combined county authorities to establish an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. In addition, the English devolution accountability framework and the scrutiny protocol set out the processes and principles that mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow. Both documents are being reviewed to reflect the changes introduced through the integrated settlement and through this Bill. Where the most established mayoral strategic authorities benefit from integrated settlement, assurance is provided via an outcomes framework which interacts with the wider government system of accountability.
However, we recognise that there is scope to strengthen further the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to exploring a local public accounts committee model. Listening to the noble Lord made me reflect on some work that I did in 2015 with Sir Richard Leese, who was then the leader of Manchester City Council, and Jules Pipe, who was then mayor of Hackney. That work was focused on devolution and turning the dial from acute responses to prevention.
We recommended that if there was more widespread devolution, there was a need to think about local public accounts committees. Although that feels like six months ago, it was 10 years ago. Maybe every idea has its time. Therefore, I accept the principle behind this amendment and assure the noble Lord that we intend to hold mayoral strategic authorities to a very high standard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was reflecting on the scrutiny of integrated settlements, for example, and allowing those who have the local knowledge of how things are working is crucial. When we were thinking about the possibility of a local public accounts committee, we saw it as being as powerful as the Public Accounts Committee here, being able to call witnesses from various bodies that are impacted on by the services and projects that are being delivered so that it can gain a much fuller picture of what is going on. This is a very different type of scrutiny—fundamentally different, as the noble Baroness said, to audit, which is a financial function. It is really important that we consider this fully. However, I ask that the Government are given time to complete the engagement that we need to do with the sector to design such a new approach, because it is important that we talk to the sector about this.
I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made about the scrutiny of all levels of local government. He is of course right that both budgets and precept levels in town and parish councils are not insignificant in many areas, so we have to think about that. It is essential that any new accountability and scrutiny regime complements the existing system and the reformed audit framework in the future. Above all, it must be proportionate and supported by clear guidance and support for the sector, to make sure that we get these reforms right. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.
Amendment 196B relates to local accounting officers. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for this proposed new clause that would require established mayoral strategic authorities to create local accounting officers. His amendment would designate the head of paid service as the accountable officer responsible for local spending, value for money and scrutiny. Although I agree with the importance of strong accountability and value for money, all mayoral strategic authorities already operate within an existing system of accountability, and that accountability is split between the “golden triangle” of statutory officers: the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer. These officers are accountable to their board and required to comply with the best value duty.
Strengthened systems are already in place for areas that have integrated settlements. This includes the mayoral strategic authority chief executive being responsible for core accountability processes within their authority, including responsibility for local outcome delivery and value for money. However, we are continuing to explore the local accounting officer model. We recognise that accountability to Parliament for the use of taxpayer money, which the accounting officer system provides, is a fundamental principle and not something to be altered lightly.
As part of our work on testing a strengthened accounting officer model, the Government are engaging with mayoral strategic authorities and other government departments. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of that work with a primary legislative change to introduce local accounting officers at this point. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will feel able not to move his amendment.
On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this proposed new clause would place a duty on the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a separate scrutiny committee for each commissioner they have appointed. As I have set out, mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English devolution framework. This includes requirements that all combined authorities, and combined county authorities, must establish an overview and scrutiny committee, which provides local checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a very important issue about being able to undertake pre-scrutiny. Overview and scrutiny committees are very capable of putting in place pre-decision scrutiny if they wish to do so. Some local authorities have that already, so it is not prohibited.
Further, the Bill ensures that the overview and scrutiny committee will have the power to recommend termination of a commissioner’s appointment. I can respond properly now to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the voting majority. To correct what I said earlier, a two-thirds majority of non-mayoral members of the combined authority or the combined county authority is required to accept the recommendation. Commissioners are also accountable to the mayor, who can terminate their appointment.
As Clause 9 allows for the appointment of up to seven commissioners, this amendment would risk institutions having to establish as many as seven scrutiny committees in addition to the existing overview and scrutiny committee that is already accountable. This would create significant additional labour and cost pressures for combined county authorities. There is a technical difficulty in that it would also apply a lopsided accountability system, as the amendment makes no reference to these seven committees applying to combined, as opposed to combined county, authorities. While we recognise that there is scope further to strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, we believe that this amendment would create unnecessary pressures on the existing system, and I therefore ask that it is not moved.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for a comprehensive reply to a comprehensive set of issues. It gives us pause for thought. I am glad that the Minister recognises the importance of pre-scrutiny. That is a fundamental issue, so if it can be better built into the Bill before it becomes an Act, that will be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(3A) Any report produced under subsection (3) must be produced annually and published on the website of the Combined County Authority.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. If there is one theme that runs consistently through today’s debates, it is the need for transparency, certainty and a clear understanding of the Government’s plans for governance structures, from Whitehall’s right down to local government. Clause 10 establishes the core reporting obligations for combined county authorities. These obligations are the foundations of accountability. As we reorganise who holds which competences, what powers are exercised at what level and who has the ability to pull levers to make things happen, it is essential that those exercising powers are clearly and robustly accounted for. These reporting requirements enable Parliament, constituency councils and, indeed, the public to understand how devolved powers are being exercised, how public money is being spent and whether these new authorities are delivering what was promised when the powers were devolved. Yet as the Bill currently stands, the substance of those obligations is left to guidance, and that has not yet been published. We are, in effect, being asked to approve a statutory framework without knowing how one of its central accountability mechanisms will operate in practice. Our amendment simply provides that Clause 10 should not come into force until that guidance is available and has been laid before Parliament. This is a modest but important safeguard. It ensures that combined county authorities are not placed under statutory duties that they cannot yet fully understand and that the accountability framework underpinning devolution is complete, transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny from the outset.
I will therefore probe the Government on a few points. First, why has the guidance not been published alongside the Bill, given that these reporting duties are so central to its operation? Secondly, what assurance can Ministers give the Committee that the guidance will not materially shape or, indeed, constrain the scope of parliamentary oversight once the Bill is enacted? Thirdly, what would be lost in practical terms by accepting a provision that simply requires Parliament to see and consider this guidance before the relevant section is commenced?
This amendment does not seek to delay devolution for its own sake; nor does it introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. It simply asks that transparency comes before implementation and that accountability is designed in rather than bolted on later. To us, that seems a pretty sensible position; I will, of course, listen carefully to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have just one thing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. Last week, I mentioned the importance of guidance being published in advance of Report; it is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the Bill, given that so much is missing from it. I therefore repeat my support for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that it would help us to have a better understanding of some of the detail that the Government are going to put into guidance before we get to the point of debating and voting on it on Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to providing allowances for combined county authority members with special responsibilities.
Amendments 62 and 236 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance before Clause 10 comes into effect, and would require a combined county authority to publish an annual report on its webpage outlining the allowances that have been paid to members with special responsibilities. I welcome the commitment from the noble Baroness to ensuring transparency in local government—a matter of paramount importance to this Government.
As a former council leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will know, as I do, that allowances probably attract more debate and discussion, from both Members and the public, than much of the other policy that we debate. That is why we will issue statutory guidance on complying with the duty under Clause 10 to produce and publish reports. The guidance will allow the Secretary of State to set clear expectations—for example, regarding the frequency of such reports and where they are published—to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in this area. In the event that further clarification is needed, the power to issue guidance provides flexibility for the Government to update their position.
I would also add that, because this amendment applies to combined county authorities only, it would create a divergence in law between the requirements imposed on them versus combined authorities. That would be inconsistent; it would not be right to treat the two types of authority differently on that basis. My understanding is that this statutory guidance will be published on Royal Assent. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister but we are back where we started, really, in that we would like to see the guidance before Report so that we can see whether the guidance is correct or whether it could include something else. I currently do not know this, and we will not know. So I thank the Minister for her answers, but we should try to get the guidance before Report; if we do not, we are going to be asking more and more questions on this in Committee.
I accept what the Minister says about combined authorities and county combined authorities. I will look at that again and, if we do not get this guidance, I will retable it on Report. At this point, I say to the Minister that this is an important issue, and it would be better if we could scrutinise it properly, at least on Report, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why the Government propose to change the precept arrangements as set out in the LURA 2023.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 63 and 64 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, both relate to Clause 11 and the proposed changes to the mayoral precept arrangements. They are intended to elicit from the Government a clearer explanation of both the necessity and the principle behind the changes proposed in this clause. We want to see the prevention of uncontrolled mayoral precepts, the avoidance of tax rises through the backdoor and fiscal parity with existing local authorities. That is more important now, having heard some of the debates today.
Amendment 63 seeks to probe why the Government believe it necessary to revisit the precept arrangements that were set out only recently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. They were presented as part of a carefully planned settlement between central government, local authorities and the public, particularly in relation to accountability and transparency around local taxation. Those arrangements were debated at length in this House by noble Lords on all Benches, as the Minister and I know only too well, given the many hours we spent debating it.
Against that background, it is not immediately clear why the Government now feel the need to depart from that framework so soon after it was enacted. What has changed and what problems have arisen that they are now seeking to address? I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could first explain what evidence the Government have had that existing arrangements are no longer fit for purpose; secondly, whether local councils or mayoral combined authorities have themselves asked for these changes; and thirdly, what outcomes for precepts they are expecting or seeking to facilitate through these changes. It is right to be cautious about reopening settlements that have barely had time to bed in, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that this is not just change for change’s sake.
Amendment 64 addresses a related but distinct, significant concern: why mayors should be treated differently from other local authorities when it comes to limits on precept increases. As things stand, other types of local authority are subject to clear principles set out annually by the Secretary of State, which limit the extent to which they may increase their council tax without triggering additional scrutiny or consent. The amendment simply proposes that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities should operate within the same principles. Therefore, my question for the Government is very simple: what is the justification for the differential treatments?
Mayors exercise significant powers and command substantial budgets with high public profile. It is only right that those powers come with the same fiscal discipline and protections for taxpayers that apply to other tiers of local government. Without parity, there is a risk that mayoral precepts become a means of raising revenue, perhaps even for vanity projects or unfunded responsibilities, without the safeguards that residents elsewhere quite rightly expect.
This leads me to a broader concern that underpins both of the amendments in this group. Too often, we see responsibilities devolved without sufficient or sustainable funding attached. While devolution can and should empower local decision-making, it should not become a mechanism by which central government passes financial pressures down the line and leaves local leaders, and therefore local taxpayers, to pick up the bill.
If mayors are given additional duties without adequate funding, the inevitable consequence is pressure to raise their precept. From a Government who have sought to raise punitive taxes at every opportunity, this sounds very much like another tax rise through the back door. I do not believe that is what the public would understand as devolution or community empowerment. It is not consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that we all should stand for.
The last two questions I have for the Minister are: for what reason do precept arrangements in the LURA need to be reopened, and why should mayors not be subject to the same precept arrangements as other local authorities? I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on both points, and I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on precepts.
Amendment 63 probes why the Government are changing precept arrangements, and I completely understand why she would do that. The changes to existing powers will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions, giving mayors more flexibility about how they fund mayoral priorities.
I remind noble Lords that the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, but it remains at the discretion of mayors how to use it. However, as it stands, mayors who choose to use the precept can spend it only on mayoral functions rather than on all the authority’s functions. This limitation is arbitrary and unnecessary. It could mean, for example, permitting spending on transport but not on health.
We want to give mayors the tools to tackle the obstacles to growth and improve the lives of people in their area, and to do this effectively, mayors must be able to spend across all an authority’s functions.
Amendment 64 would impose council tax principles automatically on strategic authorities. The Secretary of State can already set referendum principles on strategic authorities should they choose to do so. However, where used, mayoral precept rates are proportionately a small amount. Imposing a limit on how much they can rise in line with councils would mean that, in almost all areas, the value would remain insignificant and be ineffective for investing in local priorities.
The Government have made it clear that any increases to the mayoral precept should be fair and proportionate, but aligning maximum mayoral precept rate rises with other council tax rises reduces local agency, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Bill and of devolution. We want to see mayors who are empowered to invest in their communities, creating better public services and driving economic growth.
I took a quick look at some of the rates of mayoral precepts that are levied. It was interesting for me to see that in Liverpool in 2025-26, residents of band D properties were charged £24 extra for the mayoral precept per year. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the figure was £36. It is a bit unfair to compare some of the other authorities because they deliver police services and they precept for those as well. But then I looked at some of the town and parish council figures, and the average parish band D precept is £92.22, which was a percentage change of 9.4% in the last year. So, the mayoral precept feels proportionate to me.
The Government consult on the local government finance settlement each year. That is the established and appropriate way of considering what is best for authorities and taxpayers each year, and we will continue to do so. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her responses and for trying to assure me about those amendments. However, she will understand that concerns raised in the short debate between us are not about opposing devolution nor about questioning the role of mayors but about ensuring that changes to local taxation powers are justified and consistent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the Clause 12 stand part notice, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is intended to probe. We recognise that mayors and mayoral combined authorities will, in practice, need the ability to borrow to deliver infrastructure, regeneration and long-term investment. Borrowing can be a sensible and necessary tool. Our purpose today is not to deny that reality but to seek clarity from the Government about how this power will operate in practice and what safeguards will accompany it.
We would welcome further detail from the Minister on a number of points. First, what caps or controls do the Government envisage on mayoral borrowing? Will these mirror existing prudential borrowing frameworks for local authorities, or will a different regime apply? Secondly, what is the Government’s expectation of the purposes for which this borrowing will be undertaken? Are there limits envisaged on the types of projects or expenditure that may be funded through borrowing? Thirdly, who ultimately underwrites this borrowing? In the event of financial difficulty, where does the liability sit? Does it sit with the combined authority itself, with constituent councils or perhaps with central government?
Finally, what checks will be in place to ensure that borrowing decisions are subject to appropriate scrutiny and transparency, locally and nationally? Devolution must go hand-in-hand with accountability. Granting borrowing powers without clear safeguards risks storing up problems for the future—for local taxpayers and potentially for the Exchequer. I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on these important points. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising some very crucial issues on the levels of borrowing powers. I add to that my concern—made even more so by the fact that constituent councils will not be able to scrutinise the work of the mayor or commissioners.
In that situation, I hope the Government will not be anticipating that local councils will then be responsible for any overspending by mayors and the combined authorities because, otherwise, there will be a demand on the council tax payer. So can the Minister confirm that overspends caused by poor-quality work by mayoral authorities will not end up with the council tax payer having to bail them out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Clause 12 stand part notice, ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
All existing mayoral combined and combined county authorities have the power to borrow for all their functions. Unlike local authorities, the current process requires making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. This process is highly inefficient. The Bill streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities for purposes relevant to their functions. The power to borrow is still subject to safeguards. Clause 12 requires authorities to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue.
I will cover some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about. First, in relation to agreeing a debt cap, in general the exercise of power will remain subject to consent from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, before it can be used for the first time, as I said. That would follow any internal processes, such as a debt cap agreement. The only exception will be where the new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities inherit fire, police or transport functions. In this instance, the power to borrow can be exercised immediately for these functions to ensure that ongoing financial arrangements are not disrupted.
In terms of how borrowing is agreed, any borrowing by a mayoral strategic authority is agreed through the annual budget-setting process and is subject to approval by the combined and combined county authority, operating within existing legislative, financial and prudential controls. While the mayor proposes the budget, borrowing cannot be undertaken unilaterally. Under the Bill, most budgets will be approved by a simple majority, which must include the mayor.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the budget, like all other matters, will be subject to the overview and scrutiny process, so there can be scrutiny of the budget in the same way that you would expect in a local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about underwriting. Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his clause stand part notice.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. If I may, I will delve a little deeper into some of her comments. She said that the first time an authority borrows, it will have to get consent from the Secretary of State, with an implication that, at that time, guidelines or parameters would be set up. I think that is what I heard. I want to make sure it is not the case that, the first time you borrow, the Secretary of State says it is fine, and then thereafter there are no guidelines, or whatever. I appreciate the Minister may not be able to clarify that today, but if she could write to us, that would be much appreciated.
The authority can already borrow for fire and police. The Minister mentioned one other: transport. For those, there would not be any such guidelines, as I understand it from the Minister’s comments. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could come back to confirm whether that is the case or whether they would be subject to whatever guidelines may be given by the Secretary of State. That would be much appreciated.
We talked about budget controls. I am curious about that because it raises the point that the budget in effect has to be agreed by the mayor. I am intrigued as to what happens when the mayor and the combined authority are slightly at odds. What then happens in that process?
The Minister did not mention, as far as I am aware, the key question that I asked and that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was also concerned about: who in effect is the guarantor in the event that the combined authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I would be grateful if the Minister could come back with a response to that. Anticipating those answers, I will not press my opposition to Clause 12 standing part of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment of clause 13 which provides for the amendment of section 143 of LGFA 1988 and section 106A of LDEDCA 2009.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 13 will allow combined authorities and combined county authorities to make a transport levy on their constituent councils to cover any transport costs not met by grants or other revenue streams. Previously, the powers to charge a transport levy have been provided through varied and disparate regulations and orders. The Bill standardises and makes consistent the ability for combined authorities and combined county authorities to charge a transport levy. These minor and technical amendments correct new sections and amend cross references to protect the regulation-making powers for levies. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, these are technical and consequential amendments to the levies section of the Bill. It has been a long enough day, and I have already made my position on mayoral precepts and council tax very clear in the previous two groups, so I will not repeat myself.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Police covenant: mandatory reporting on suicide and attempted suicide(1) The Secretary of State must ensure the collection and publication of data on suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff for the purposes of supporting mental health and wellbeing under the police covenant (see section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).(2) Each police force in England and Wales must collect and submit annually to the Secretary of State—(a) the number of confirmed suicides by serving police officers and police staff;(b) the number of attempted suicides by serving police officers and police staff;(c) contextual information, where reasonably available, including duty status, length of service, role, rank, known occupational stressors, and access to mental health support. (3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, lay a report before Parliament (to be known as the “Police Covenant Mental Health Report”) which must include, but is not limited to—(a) national and force-level data trends,(b) analysis of occupational contributory factors,(c) assessment of the adequacy, usage and evidence-based outcomes of mental health and suicide prevention provisions under the police covenant,(d) recommendations to address identified risks, and(e) a statement from the Chief Medical Officer for England.(4) The report under subsection (3) must—(a) be published and disseminated to all police personnel;(b) include commentary from the College of Policing on compliance, data quality and best practice at force level;(c) include contributions from staff representative bodies and trade unions.(5) Anonymised data, disaggregated by force area, must be published, subject to data protection and safeguarding.(6) Each Chief Constable must, at the end of every calendar year, provide a statement to the Secretary of State certifying that the requirements under this section have been met by their police force.(7) Where a Chief Constable fails to provide a certification under subsection (6) without reasonable excuse, the Secretary of State must notify HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.(8) The Inspectorate must have regard to a notification under subsection (7) in the course of its inspection of that police force under the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) programme.(9) The Secretary of State must establish an independent advisory board, to be known as the “Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board”.(10) The Board must consist of persons with expertise in clinical care, occupational health, staff representation and academic research.(11) The functions of the Board are to—(a) advise the Secretary of State on guidance relating to suicide prevention and mental health in the police workforce,(b) set standards for the collection and reporting of relevant data, and(c) review and make recommendations on force-level responses to risks identified through data and inspections.(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of the Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board, including provision about—(a) the Board’s procedures,(b) its terms of reference, and(c) its reporting duties.(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) data collection standards,(b) statutory guidance,(c) audit mechanisms, and(d) such further oversight as may be considered necessary.(14) In this section, “police officer” and “police staff” have the same meanings as in section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support and move the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, to which I have added my name. I also support the other two amendments in this group. The reason for the amendments is that the Police Federation of England and Wales is concerned because it believes—but is not sure—that there is an increased rate of suicide among police officers, and it has a similar concern around police staff. For those noble Lords who do not know, about two-thirds of police work is done by police officers and about a third by employees who are police staff.
The Police Federation was concerned because it intuitively thought that the numbers were rising, so it sent out FoI requests to each of the 43 forces—in fact, there are also three non-Home Office forces. Unfortunately, it got only 34 replies, which has not helped it in determining whether there is a real problem. It could be worried for no cause, but at the moment it is struggling to establish the facts. The difficulty is that it cannot get hold of the data. I am really concerned about this, because it seems to me that it should not be that difficult.
I suspect that, even if the numbers of suicides are increasing, there are probably not going to be hundreds, even among a workforce of a quarter of a million. It is probably a relatively small number—probably tens rather than hundreds. Even for the biggest organisations, you would think that they would be able to find this data. For the smallest forces, surely they can remember the individuals. Some of the smaller forces we heard about in the police reforms announced yesterday have about 1,000 people, so there are not going to be so many that small forces could not remember whom this shocking thing had happened to. Police officers and police staff are generally relatively young people. They do not tend to die when they are in service, and when they die through suicide, it is a terrible shock for everybody involved.
There would be complications in gathering the data. As the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, proposes, it would be helpful to get the data not only about those who have committed suicide but also about those who have attempted it. Establishing whether a death is a suicide or not relies on a coroner; that is the only absolute way in which we can say that there has definitely been a suicide. Sometimes, to be fair, coroners are sympathetic. They realise that this can feel to the family like a judgment, and often they will find any way that they can, in law, to find an alternative, so getting hold of the data can be difficult.
Of course, who can say what an attempted suicide is? There is no absolute proof of that. I suspect that the occupational health units in each of the 43 forces have some data. Because that is medical data, however, they cannot always share it with the employer. If it is relevant just to that person but is not relevant to their employment; it is a confidential issue and, if the individual wants it kept secret, then that is entirely up to them, and the occupational health units might not be able to share it.
It is vital to get this data for a couple of reasons. One is to establish patterns, if there are patterns; for example, does it affect certain roles? We know already that it is an awful job for certain officers and staff who view, for example, child abuse images as part of their general work. To have to sustain that work over months and years, even with all the welfare support that they get, might make it an area that we would be worried about if we saw that there was an increase in the number of suicides; likewise, among firearms officers or dog handlers, male or female—the role does not really matter. We just need to understand what it is, obviously, to try to prevent it.
What worries me about not being able to get hold of this data—it ought to be possible to get at least some of it—is what it says about the relationship with the chief officers, the Police Federation and the unions. There is a statutory requirement for the chiefs to meet personally with the head of the federation every quarter, and to meet with the unions. I am sure my colleagues will also explain that. Beyond that formal requirement, we also meet them informally, usually about once a month. Chiefs should be meeting their federation reps at times such as bravery awards, and there are various other internal mechanisms.
If they are concerned, it is hard to imagine that they have not mentioned it. If they have mentioned it, why have they not got a response? Why has it ended up with FoI requests, three-quarters of which have been badly answered? In fact, some of those who did not reply were the biggest forces of all. Sometimes people take it that 30-odd out of 40-odd forces is three-quarters; it is three-quarters of the forces, but some of the forces are very big and some are very small, so we do not have any representative data.
My final point is for the Home Office. There are, broadly, two amendments here. One is very detailed from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, about not only how the data is gathered but what is done with it afterwards. My amendment just says that the Home Office might want to collect this data. I wonder whether the Home Office has asked for it and also been refused; perhaps the Home Office could be interested as well.
It is important for two reasons. First, when people are committing suicide in their employment, it matters that we establish whether it is their employment that is causing it, or there is something else that the employer has absolutely nothing to do with. The employer might have been able to help had they had some sensitivity to the problems that their staff are facing. Secondly, policing is about care. Those who serve must look after each other. My test is always that at 3 am, when everybody else has gone home, you cannot call the police if you have a problem, so you must rely on your colleagues.
It is vital for any employer to care for their staff because they want better performance, and to make sure that their staff can do what they are paying them a salary for. But in policing and the emergency services in particular, you must rely on each other and look after each other. If that is not done properly, or if there is anything we could do to help a person, but they then take their own life and we could have noticed, it is probably the worst example, and, surely, we would all want to do something about that. It matters for many reasons and that is why I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, and have tabled my own. I beg to move Amendment 435.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 435 and, of course, I support Amendment 438A from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in this group. I remind the Committee that I served as the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland for five years between 2016 and 2021. I welcome this initiative by the Police Federation of England and Wales. I am proud to say that its present chair, Tiff Lynch, is a Leicestershire police officer, whom I can call a friend.
As Police and Crime Commissioner, I was responsible for the well-being—this is true of all Police and Crime Commissioners but perhaps not widely known—of only one person: the chief constable. However, as any Police and Crime Commissioner would be, I was concerned in a broader sense with the well-being of all those who worked for Leicestershire Police, whether officers or staff. During my time, one senior officer took his own life in obviously tragic circumstances and, since I left office, there has been another suicide, this time of a very recently retired senior officer.
I am afraid to say that over the last 30 years there have been four senior officer suicides in that force. I do not have any information concerning police staff, but I remember clearly, and will not easily forget, the deep and lasting distress caused to all at police headquarters and in the community beyond by the death of the officer who took his own life in my time.
I must confess to not knowing at the time that all police forces were not compelled by law to pass on information about suicide or attempted suicide. I imagine I presumed that they were compelled to do so. It is surely obvious—it certainly is to me—that there should be mandatory reporting. I cannot for the life of me understand why that has not been the position until now. That is why I support these amendments and urge the Minister, with his great knowledge of policing matters, to express the Government’s acceptance of the principle behind these amendments.
It almost goes without saying that police staff who perform such a vital and necessary role can be subject to enormous pressures that we sometimes do not even know about and are rightly included in the mandatory reporting. This is a reform that should not be delayed. The Bill is a useful vehicle for bringing in what should have been there a long time ago.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment, following on from what both noble Lords have said. Policing is a difficult, dangerous and stressful task. I have for many years referred to police officers as the men and women who are the dustbin collectors of society. They will go where other people do not want to go. I take my information source beyond those whom the noble Lords have mentioned. My son did 32 years in the police service. He has just retired as a senior detective, running one of the most difficult parts of the Metropolitan Police, and he now has a very senior role in government. Over the last two to three years, he and his friends have reported how people are either thinking about committing suicide or have attempted suicide, and in his command over about 18 months two committed suicide.
Whether and how you deal with a suicide is a difficult question. It is sensitive information. People shy away from it, understandably, but there is no doubt that we have a suicide problem in policing. My 30 years’ experience of Northern Ireland was in taking people into the most difficult situation in policing that has ever been undertaken—more of that later, no doubt, at the public inquiry, with what has been disclosed recently. Out of 28 people, all hand-picked, who went into Northern Ireland on the so-called Stevens 1, four of them never came back to policing. Two of them were thinking of committing suicide and I referred them to the force medical officer. Those people never reached the statistics.
Like my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I was an inspector of constabulary for nearly two years, inspecting many forces across the country, from the largest to the smallest. One of the most important roles of the inspectorate in that case—we have discussed this—was that we went and looked at the sickness rates of a force. If we found that the sickness rates were very high, performance and morale were low. We would dig deeper, but it was difficult to find out where suicide played a role or if it played a role at all. We have a problem here and I say to the Minister, who is always supportive, that this may well be a nudge in the right direction.
Some of us, as old men do, have dinner parties or meet up for a glass now and again, and the information that I am getting from my old colleagues and current colleagues, who I have to keep in contact with because of the activities that we are now about to be involved in in relation to Northern Ireland, is that there is a problem. I can understand why some chiefs would shy away from that. We have a police commissioner here who did a superb job—not many of them do or did, but he did—and if you listen to what my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe has to say and to my information, we need to do something.
Maybe this amendment is too long and complex for it to stand the test of examination, but there is an amendment further on, submitted by my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, which is short, sharp and to the point. It holds the kernel of what we are dealing with. I support the amendments, including the final amendment, whichever way my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe wants to go. Let us have a look at it. What is there to hide behind these figures? Why has this survey come back with very little information in it? Speaking as a chief constable, a commissioner and an HMI, I think that that is not good enough. I do not believe that the Home Office should be treated in such a way.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I, too, support the shortest of all the amendments. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe’s Amendment 438A gets to what needs to happen without a lot of description. I have always felt that brevity is the best answer to a problem, because you know what is being asked for. I want to congratulate him on putting in this amendment. Every organisation will face this question of suicide and, if there is a way of collecting the data and working out why, that is necessary. I believe that the duty of candour is not simply about the way the police treat citizens; it is also about the way the organisation treats the police service. There must be a duty of candour from the chief officer and, of course, the Home Office has a part to play. I support this wonderful short amendment, because that is what needs to happen. With a much longer amendment, I am afraid that what is simple will be lost in quite a lot of detail, which is not what we want.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches there is strong support for Amendments 435 and 438A, which would finally shine a light on one of the most sensitive and least discussed aspects of police welfare: suicide and attempted suicide among officers and staff. This is not about apportioning blame; it is about creating conditions in which people can seek help early and leaders cannot look away. Nearly two years ago I sought this very information and was assured that work was happening to collate it. Yet no figures have emerged, leaving families, colleagues and policymakers in the dark, still awaiting clarity and transparency. These amendments would ensure that bereaved families do not feel that their loss has been silently absorbed and they would confront the lingering stigma around mental ill health in policing.
Policing demands a particular duty of care that transcends the ordinary employer-employee relationship, as the state requires officers to face repeated trauma that is unparalleled in any other walk of life. We are now operating in what many describe as a crisis policing model, where officers spend most of their time dealing with the darkest parts of human experience with far fewer opportunities to balance that with visible neighbourhood-based work. In the past, time spent on community policing would lift them out of the dark place. Today, that release valve is much weaker. Much of the informal support that once existed has disappeared. Officers used to have shared spaces where they could decompress together at the end of a shift, but those communal areas have largely gone. From staff sifting through distressing online material every day to front-line officers facing the increasing likelihood of physical assault, the psychological strain is relentless. This feeds a siege mentality in a service that still struggles to recognise emotion and is not naturally open.
Policing remains an environment where taking paternity leave can invite mockery and where the burden can fall especially heavily on women and minority officers amid unreported discrimination. In too many forces, officers still fear that admitting vulnerability will derail their career progression. If Parliament seeks people to shoulder that burden on our behalf, it must insist on collecting basic information. Tracking suicides and attempted suicides would pinpoint hotspots and high-risk groups, enabling proactive measures such as resilience training, peer support and routine psychological screening. I urge the Minister to take these amendments back to the Home Office and consider bringing forward concrete proposals on Report.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. The noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, and I know all too well the stresses and strains of policing. It is vital that more is done to support our officers. I approach these amendments from the fact that it is impossible to address what we do not measure and, at this moment, policing has almost no reliable national mechanism for measuring accurately the total number of police suicides.
Data from the Police Federation of England and Wales shows that more than 100 police officers and staff have died by suicide between 2022 and 2025, with at least 70 officer deaths and over 200 attempted suicides in that period. Those figures are likely undercounts because there is no statutory requirement for forces to record such events. The federation has also revealed troubling trends in how these incidents are linked with organisational stresses—notably, that 47 of 70 suicides and 173 of 236 attempted suicides that it has identified between 2022 and 2025 involved officers under investigation for misconduct or criminal allegations. That is not simply a statistic; it is a human tragedy that echoes through families, colleagues and communities.
As has been said, police forces are not required to record suicide or attempted suicide, meaning that the true scale of the problem is hidden from view and national suicide statistics do not treat policing as a risk occupation, as they should. Without a statutory duty to record and report, we are asking police leaders to act in good faith alone, with widely inconsistent results. Two of the largest police forces in England and Wales reportedly could not provide their own figures when the federation asked. The amendments would end that inconsistency by placing responsibility for data collection and publication on a statutory footing.
The amendments are not a step taken in isolation from policing leadership. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are already committed to suicide prevention across the service. They have jointly endorsed a national consensus statement on working together to prevent suicide in the police service in England and Wales, acknowledging the importance of reducing stigma and improving well-being. The College of Policing also leads on national suicide prevention guidance and professional practice, emphasising the duty of forces to recognise inherent risk factors associated with police work and to promote supportive interventions. However, guidance and consensus alone cannot ensure consistent national reporting or create the accountability that comes from an annual report, laid before Parliament, which analyses trends, contributory factors and the effectiveness of support mechanisms under the police covenant.
Requiring chief constables to certify compliance and linking non-compliance to inspection through HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will ensure that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise but a real driver for change. However, without consistent mandatory data, these efforts lack the firm foundation needed to evaluate progress and target interventions where they are most needed. We on these Benches fully support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for highlighting the amendments that he has put before the Committee today and to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, although he is not in his place, who tabled two of the amendments.
The importance of collecting accurate and consistent data for police officer and staff suicide is certainly relevant. I note particularly that the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Bach have a significant senior level of experience in these areas. I am grateful also for the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and I recognise and note the strong support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Opposition Benches for the proposals in the amendments.
Every life lost to suicide is a tremendous tragedy and, when that person is part of our police workforce, that loss is even deeper because those officers, as has been said, walk towards danger and see things that everyday citizens do not see. It is only fair that we support them with the same care and commitment that they show to us.
It may help the Committee to know that last year I met the Police Federation chair, Tiff Lynch, when she raised these matters with me. I have to say that this is an issue. We must do our utmost to protect and support police officers and this Government agree that understanding the scale and nature of the problem is essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is important that we understand whether any levels of suicide are linked specifically to a policing role or linked to factors outside of policing that policing may or may not exacerbate, as well as what measures can be taken, as in any walk of life, to help to support and encourage individuals who have mental health challenges or experiences that drive them to suicide. That is why we as a Government are actively considering the best options for achieving that, both in legislation and via non-legislative routes, so that we can deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements without creating unnecessary burdens.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for such a constructive response and of course I thank everyone for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a point that I had not made in my speech but that I want to amplify: in collecting the data, we should consider people for at least 12 months after retirement. He mentioned one particular case, but we can all perhaps imagine others and, if there is a link, that would be interesting to look at.
I hope we do not have to end up with legislation, because, in a way, that would be an admission of failure. There are far better ways of achieving it without that, or the bureaucracy that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, mentioned. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his usual powerful support for this and for saying it is common sense that this needs sorting out—there was no challenge on that from the Minister. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their wholehearted support.
A couple of important things have through in the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the potential link to misconduct processes. If that is an issue, we need to understand why. We had an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, on a previous Committee day about potential deadlines or timelines for how long these things take; that cannot be unconnected. Whatever it is, we need to understand what it is about.
There is a second very important HR issue: are we recruiting people who understand the nature of the job they are about to embark on? Are we sharing the nature of the challenges? Are we supporting them at the beginning if they have things that they are not sure about? It is important, for the reasons we have all talked about, to make sure that this happens. I am really reassured about the round table. It would be really helpful if, by Report, we had a definite route forward, because I can see there are various routes.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Can I raise one point with the noble Lord? It seems to me—certainly from reflecting on my own police service—that one of the issues regarding suicide simply was the fact that police managers were unable to identify the issues when they arose. I wonder whether he, as a former commissioner and part of the inspectorate, has a view on that.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, makes a really good point: are we training our managers and supervisors to recognise the signs? For good reasons, occupational health units keep all this data together privately. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned a referral to the medical officer to see whether there was a problem; I wonder how many referrals are coming back the other way to let the manager know that this person might have an issue, not necessary to talk about suicide but to say there is a stress issue and they may need some support. Has it become a one-way valve that protects their privacy but reduces their safety? There are many facets to it that I hope the round table might address. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and thank the Government for their response.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Police enforcement data(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish annual data on the enforcement of the following offences—(a) shoplifting,(b) offences involving a blade,(c) phone theft,(d) fare dodging on public transport, and(e) offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.(2) In this section, “enforcement” means the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 436, I will also speak to my Amendment 437. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issue of police force publication of enforcement data and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for supporting my proposed review of police paperwork or its online equivalent.
As I explained at Second Reading, I have discovered in my long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and regulations themselves. This is as true for neighbourhood policing as it is for serious crime, and far too little is being done. I also believe in the power of comparative statistics as a driver of performance and success. As I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, during the Sentencing Bill debate, good leadership and management —the manager of a store or the prison governor—is the best predictor of success. I believe the same will be the case in the police, although I would be interested to hear from the Minister at what level that is true in the police structure.
However, it is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data. Hence, my amendment takes five areas of public concern, which we have already debated and which the Great British public care about: shoplifting, offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport, and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters. It would require police forces individually to publish annual data—so not a great burden—on the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution. It needs to be accessible, so the public and parliamentarians can see it and hold police forces to account. They will also be able to see how others are doing and learn from their success.
The amendment would, I suspect, help to reveal the scale of wasted effort. Many cases of burglary, shoplifting and theft are not pursued, despite good evidence from the victim, because of the bureaucracy and even indifference of the system, and the poor IT integration between the CPS and the courts, which we have discussed on other occasions. It would help to focus on the right things, away from prosecutions for tweets and back to the Peelite principle that the police need to be part of the community they serve. The sunlight of publicity would help to drive necessary change. I say to the Minister that data helps people to do the right thing and to take timely and sensible action. I would be interested to know from the Minister how much of the data proposed in my amendment is already collected and how accurate it is, so that we can assess how difficult the change would be.
Amendment 437 seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that the police services have become, with energetic police women and men weighed down by requirements. The effect is to drain resource from the front line and our pavements. Indeed, the Bill will just add to such requirements, rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we cannot solve the problem today, which is why I propose a review of police paperwork, which needs to be led by an outsider with a passion for cutting red tape and looking to experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business, which we found very useful in the supermarket sphere—another huge employer of well-trained and decent people. The review could also look at the IT and AI systems linking the police to the courts, the CPS and other enforcement bodies. I believe there is huge scope to reduce and simplify paperwork and its online equivalent.
The Minister may know that there is already a Police Federation campaign known, curiously, as #SimplifyDG6. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure, which sees both uniformed and detective officers tied up for hours. Police officers are required to redact files that go to the CPS in order for it to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender. The federation believes that a data bubble, allowing unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS before a charging decision, would free up thousands of policing hours every year. Redactions could then be completed by the police if a person is to be charged. I know from my business experience that taking a proper look at such processes can yield huge productivity savings.
I hope the Minister will look at the proposals in our amendment seriously and not just refer me to the police reform package announced yesterday. The Wild West of street crime is here today but, as the Government have made clear, their reforms will take years to bring in. They will also increase and not decrease paperwork.
There are bad apples in the police, like everywhere. However, the idea of regularly requiring a licence to practice for every police constable is not necessary and will reduce efficiency, cost a fortune and lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training paperwork, or its online filing, linked to the proposed well-being and development checks and career pathways. Licensed professions are generally for areas where there are specific and clear academic requirements, such as medical doctors or accountants. I do not believe it makes sense and could undermine one of the great advantages of the police—I speak from the experience of having a son in the Met—that it attracts intelligent and brave people to the dangerous task described so well by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who, sadly, is no longer in his place.
These policemen do not necessarily have, need or want the paperwork credentials of other important professions. We need common sense, not credentialism. That is the way ahead. On the face of it, this approach feels mistaken, although I recognise that there will be extensive consultation on the changes in the White Paper. But this is all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as ever, to support my noble friend in her Amendments 436 and 437. She is an expert in intellectual property, but she might want to copyright the term “Wild West of street crime”, as we have got used to it.
Amendment 436 goes to the heart of a police accountability. That is the wider issue here. It seeks to put on a statutory footing the imperative to provide timely data in respect of enforcement, openness and transparency. It is not necessarily about interfering in the operational effectiveness or decision-making of the police, but it is about openness, transparency and restoring the faith and trust that taxpayers should have in their local police. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is not in his place. I am sure he discharged his duties commendably in Leicestershire, but, frankly, the police and crime commissioner model has not worked. I speak as someone who used my maiden speech in the other place in June 2005 to call for elected police commissioners. I am afraid that it has been a damp squib. The relationship between senior police officers and the commissioners, to whom they should have had accountability, has not worked out in the way it should have done. I applaud the Government for the decision to discontinue that.
We see egregious examples of apparent two-tier policing. Robert Peel is probably turning in his grave now when he looks at the antics of the chief constable of the West Midlands, who colluded with Islamist thugs and their representative, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, in preventing Jewish fans from attending a game in our second city. He also lied twice to a parliamentary committee, seemingly with impunity. He has now left the service with a large taxpayer-funded pension.
The question is: do the police actually care what elected politicians and Ministers think? I am not sure that is the case. There have been lots of cases of alleged two-tier policing. More recently, one has to look only at the comparison between the policing of the Palestinian hate marchers in our capital from October 2023 and, for instance, the banning of a Walk with Jesus rally in east London or the heavy-handed policing of farmers protesting at the Government’s tax policies at the end of last year. This is not a political issue. It is an issue of the undermining of policing by consent and that is bad news for all of us.
Data is needed for the justice system, particularly the police force, both to work effectively and so that they can be scrutinised by lawmakers and the public. Public perception of our police matters. We want our police to be perceived positively by the public based on evidence that they are doing their jobs well. Public perception of the police is currently low, and crime rates appear to be high. Data on enforcement would both be a motivation for effective policing and help them to be held accountable—and, more importantly, give an accurate public image.
We currently have a crisis on our hands in respect of law enforcement in England and Wales. Knife crime in England and Wales rose by 78% between 2013 and 2023; even when the population growth was factored in, this was still a 68.3% rise. In 2024, 31.5% of all robberies committed in London’s Met police area involved stealing mobile phones—this increased from 21.6% in 2021. Noble Lords will know that the Committee considered my amendment on the theft of mobile phones, ably introduced my noble friend, earlier this month. In-person theft offences—which, according to Policy Exchange, is where an item is stolen from a person but, unlike a robbery, no force is used or threatened—the percentage of cases is even higher and represents between 68.5% and 72.6% of offences during the last four years. London has faced a dramatic surge in theft from the person offences: a 170% increase in the three years up to 2024. Also, there were nearly 95,000 shoplifting offences in the year to June 2025, a 38% increase on the previous year.
This amendment is about enforcement data. The police are not always effective in dealing with these crimes. In the year to March 2025, the Met solved 5% of burglaries and robberies reported to it. It solved less than 1.5% of reported bike thefts and less than 8% of shoplifting offences. In 2024, only 0.6% of theft from the person offences were solved. This declined from just 1.1% in 2021. Public perception of the police is becoming worse. In 2022, 50% of Londoners thought that their local police were doing a good job; in 2025, that had dropped to 45%.
Police forces across England and Wales should publish data annually on the enforcement of offences so that the public and lawmakers know how successfully crimes are being policed. The public also deserve to know this information. If the rate of crime is increasing, so then should the rate of enforcement. We must support the Peelite principle of policing by consent. We need to collect, collate and analyse data to restore public confidence. That is why we need to support my noble friend’s amendment, as I have today. I hope the Minister will give consideration to what is essentially a cross-party amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I totally support Amendment 436 on the collection of enforcement data; the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, have explained well why I do. But I am rising to speak to Amendment 437 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, calling for a review of police paperwork. I will just explain why. I have put my name on a number of amendments that require more data collection, which might sound contradictory. But we need more granular and accurate data, while ensuring that data is streamlined and necessary, rather than collected just for the sake of it. In that sense, there is no contradiction.
The review of paperwork is necessary to identify and cut out all the endless and needless form-filling that police officers are forced to do. Whenever you talk to rank and file police officers, one of the most voluble frustrations that they voice is the ever-growing regime of paperwork and bureaucracy. They complain that they did not sign up to become pen-pushers and this is hardly what they envisaged when they joined the force.
More seriously, we have just heard a very moving debate on the mental health challenges faced by some police officers. I do not want to be glib, but when you talk to police officers, they will often say that they are tearing their hair out and completely demoralised because of the amount of bureaucracy that they face—so it is worth bearing that in mind.
The impressive multiplication of the number of forms the police have to fill out could be interpreted as indicative of the scientification or the professionalisation of police work, as the bureaucratic regime’s apologists would have us believe. I think the duplication of information, which is often banal, indicates a stifling bureaucratisation of policing and a trend that is reiterated by officers as impeding their ability to respond to crime or engage in proactive crime solving.
I want to use an example from some years ago. I was a victim of a very nasty, unpleasant mugging. I reported it to the police, as one does, and they were hyperactive in their response. I got a very nice letter reassuring me that they were there for me as a victim. got a form to fill in, asking whether I had had the right kind of support as a victim. I even had a follow-up phone call to find out why I had not filled out my form and to make sure I was okay. The problem was that at no point did anyone visit me in the sense of attempting to apprehend the person who had committed the mugging. That never came up. It was all about my feelings about being a victim of crime, rather than solving the crime. Imagine how much paperwork went into that. I was bemused, but infuriated as well.
We would like this review to ask how paperwork has proliferated. Certain people argue that the process-driven approach to policing is created by risk aversion—the police covering their own backs, potentially. It might be that it is an obsession with communication. There is certainly a lot of press releasing done, tweets put out and so on. The main thing is that we have to get to the bottom of what is creating it. I think—there will be a discussion on this on a later group—that a lot of the work generated does not have anything to do with core policing. When I talk to police officers I know, they say they are engaged in a wide range of activity related to equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives, which are also bureaucratic in terms of the kind of things that they have to do. We heard about non-crime hate incidents on a previous group. How many hours are spent investigating those? There is also a great deal of paperwork being generated by that, and hopefully we have seen the back of them.
Perhaps this amendment is kicking at an open door. I am hoping for a positive response from the Minister because the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has made similar points. It seems that cutting red tape is a part of what the Home Office is trying to do, so I am delighted about that.
I have a couple of reservations. I am slightly worried that the solution for cutting red tape that has been put forward is a greater use of AI. I am all for sensible use of technology, but I note that West Midlands Police recently took a shortcut and cut back on a lot of hours of paperwork that would have been wasted in a proper investigation in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv football game with Aston Villa. The problem with that shortcut and paper-saving exercise was that as a consequence it came up with a non-existent football match to justify the banning of the Israeli fans, as we know. Recent research by businesses has shown that for every 10 hours apparently saved by the use of AI, four hours are used checking errors and fact-checking AI output. They have had to bring in extra staff to do that particular type of work.
Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, on her reservations about the licensing of police officers. I am afraid that fills me with horror. Credentialism is notorious for being more bureaucratisation. If you want any evidence, just look at the university sector and what is happening on that in certain sectors.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 437 calls for a review of the volume of paperwork that police officers must complete in the course of their duties. This is one of the most persistent frustrations voiced by front-line officers. Despite the introduction of a new digital case file system, the use of automatic redaction tools and simplified disclosure guidance, the core problem remains: a combination of the pre-charge full file requirement and an onerous disclosure regime. We share the noble Baroness’s concerns, but we do not believe a review is the answer. The evidence is already on the table, as are the solutions.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling her two amendments. I begin with Amendment 436, co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I strongly support my noble friend’s efforts to ensure that release statistics are as rigorous and useful as possible. These releases are pivotal to both the police and the public—the police so that they are aware of the types of crimes they are likely to encounter, and the public so that they can judge the performance of police forces for themselves.
As it stands, there is not a standard, reliable measurement of crime rates and statistics. The current accredited metric used by the Office for National Statistics is the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is helpful in giving an indication of certain crime rates but cannot be described as a foolproof operational tool. It uses an interviewer-administered face-to-face survey, which immediately makes the recounting of crime a choice on behalf of the victim, who may, for whatever reason, decide not to disclose it. It reports only crimes committed against over-16s and excludes crimes against the general public, the state, tourists and residents of institutions.
I understand that this is done so that the survey is unaffected by police reporting or recording changes, but it also creates a crime reporting system deeply affected by human discretion that can similarly not serve as a trustworthy basis. The least we can do is ask that the police are required to record data on the enforcement of offences simultaneously to the Crime Survey for England and Wales releases. It would provide a metric to judge police performance, as it would demonstrate the estimated number of crimes committed compared with those investigated by police forces.
This leads me to my noble friend’s second amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Investigations into committed crimes must lead to prosecutions, or else there is little point in maintaining a justice system. Between 2020 and 2024, more than 30,000 prosecutions collapsed. A large proportion of these came from the mishandling or loss of evidence by police. The storage and retention of evidence is an area in desperate need of modernising. It has been described as overwhelming by serving officers and has too often resulted in injustice for victims. The first step in solving this issue is a thorough review of the system as it currently exists before setting out a blueprint of reform. The amendment in question would provide for this, so I wholly support it and I hope the Minister does too. I look forward to his reply.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her continued interest in improving transparency and accountability in policing. She will know that I am outcome-focused myself, and that I try to ensure that we get outcomes. I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 436.
The Government have taken significant steps to improve the visibility of police performance. I draw noble Baroness’s attention to the newly established police performance framework. That framework, supported by the Home Office’s police performance unit, provides a robust mechanism for monitoring enforcement activities across all 43 current police forces in England and Wales. This includes the priority offences that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as shoplifting, knife crime and theft.
The noble Baroness mentioned the White Paper; I will respond by trailing some of the announcements that were made in the White Paper yesterday. A key one was that the Home Office will this year introduce an initial sector-facing police performance dashboard that will enable chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the transparent, high quality and operationally significant data that all three Back-Bench speakers sought. This will empower forces to deliver improvements through strengthening their understanding of where they are performing well and where they can learn from practice in other forces to improve. The framework has been designed to be flexible, and there will be a midpoint review in middle of 2027-28 to allow for the inclusion of any new priorities that might be brought forward. The Government believe that this is an appropriate mechanism for considering additional offence categories, rather than—with due respect to the noble Baroness— mandating them in primary legislation.
I took to heart the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that requiring police forces to publish enforcement data on a fixed list of offences might add burdens and administrative duplication, particularly when many of these offences are already captured through a range of other mechanisms, and contradict the later amendments to reduce police bureaucracy. That is an important factor to bear in mind when we consider this proposal.
Furthermore, the police and the CPS are required to comply with the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on charging, which applies to all offences where a criminal charge may be instituted. This guidance ensures that investigations meet evidential and public interest tests before prosecution. Compliance for that is monitored through an internal assessment framework between the police and the CPS that is crime agnostic and used only for management purposes. A statutory duty to publish enforcement data for selected offences might duplicate those arrangements and divert resources from front-line policing.
In summary on Amendment 436, yes, we need to improve, but we have put in place some mechanisms. We will monitor those mechanisms and, I hope, return to them in due course, without the legislative requirement proposed by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 437 goes to the heart of the core issue of productive use of police time. I again note the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for this amendment. The 2023 Police Activity Survey, provided by the Home Office, gave us significant insights into how police time is used. We are planning to repeat that survey this year, and I hope it will again help us to understand a bit more about the policing landscape.
The 2023 productivity review, sponsored by the College of Policing’s Centre for Police Productivity, prioritised the rollout of productivity-enhancing capabilities, such as the use of AI and robotic process automation, to reduce the time spent on administration. I know that there are concerns about AI, and I have heard them raised today in Committee. However, when properly used, AI can reduce bureaucracy. In Autumn 2024, we launched the Police Efficiency and Collaboration Programme to explore how we can improve productivity and efficiency savings.
Yesterday, the Government published the policing White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing—I have a copy to hand for ease of reference. In that White Paper is a comprehensive package of reforms that address the issues in the noble Baroness’s amendment. I refer her to paragraph 91, which says:
“Another area of extensive paperwork in policing comes from the requirements of the criminal justice system. In the months ahead we will work with the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service (alongside the Attorney General’s Office) to examine changes that could reduce the burden on policing. As part of this work, we will look at a number of areas including the disclosure regime and redaction, the use of out of court resolutions, charging and joint police-prosecution performance metrics. We will do this alongside consideration of any new or emerging evidence, such as the implications of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations for criminal court reform”.
We therefore recognise that that is an important issue.
I also refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 293, which says:
“It is expected that in its first year Police.AI will focus on some of the biggest administrative burdens facing policing – including disclosure, analysis of CCTV footage, production of case files, crime recording and classification and translating and transcribing documents. This will free up 6 million policing hours each year”.
The Government are therefore focused on those issues, so I am not convinced that we need a legislative solution to deal with them. With this having been put in the White Paper—it is a brand-new document, and Members will want to have a chance to reflect upon it—the direction of travel is self-evidently there. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the core issues on which she is calling for a review are addressed in the document that I have just referred to the Committee.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am old enough to remember the last time that we looked at regional police forces. That was under the Minister’s erstwhile colleague, the right honourable Charles Clarke, I think, in 2008-09. There is some merit in the argument for amalgamating large forces. However, will the Minister confirm that AI is also important in supporting hyper-local community policing? A burglary takes place in the Met area every 11 minutes, and, tragically, a rape takes place every 54 minutes. There are big discrepancies between, say, Bexley, Richmond, Kingston and central London. Will the Minister ensure that Ministers are cognisant of the need to use AI to reinforce community policing, as well as the mergers of police forces at a very large level?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I refer him to the first line of paragraph 281 of the policing White Paper, which says:
“In policing, getting the right information into the right hands at the right time can mean the difference between life and death”.
That is absolutely right, as is the point that the noble Lord made. AI, particularly how it develops over the next few years, will be critical in distilling information that can be used by police to investigate, capture and understand crime performance in any area. We have some significant expertise in the Home Office that is looking at those issues, and the direction of travel has been set in the White Paper.
In addition to the forces of good using AI, criminals are themselves looking at how they can use AI to better defraud people, so we need to be ahead of the game on that as well. In the White Paper, we are looking at AI in respect of both challenges. We are looking at how it is used by bad actors, and at how we can reduce, collect and analyse information and dissect trends in a much speedier way and take out physical paperwork. The noble Lord makes a very valid point about how that can be used at a local level, as well as on a national trend basis.
The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is making are very valid. When I was last doing the job of Police Minister in 2009-10, which was a long time ago, we had a review at the Police Federation’s urging. We have tried to reduce paperwork, because it is critical. Police officers should use technology to amass information on how we can prevent crime, bring prosecutions through the CPS and understand trends in local areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has said. That is the direction of travel in the White Paper. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think this has been a constructive discussion with a good tone. I thank the Minister for his comments, including on the new dashboard and the plan to review that again in 2027-28, and other mechanisms such as the policy activity review and things that have been proposed in the White Paper. I will look at all that before deciding how we come back to this important subject on Report.
I would warn against relying too much on AI. I am a huge fan of using AI to improve justice systems. But it is also important to look at the underlying processes themselves before turning them into AI or tech processes. You need to use the lean thinking that I mentioned, which I have experience of from the private sector, because that helps you to do things much better.
Having said that, I am very, very grateful for the wide support for this area; I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Jackson for reminding us of some of the numbers, especially in London. We heard about the collapse of cases and other difficulties which we need to tackle together. We heard about the importance of improving public perception of police activity. Good, streamlined, clear data could help drive a better perception of what the police are doing and what they are trying to do, and so improve public confidence.
On paperwork, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right to question some of the things that the police are required to do and to record, and I feel that a review, going slightly beyond what is in the White Paper, could actually help us with that. That would help our very energetic Home Secretary to do the right things to try to reduce bureaucracy, which I know is the Government’s intention.
Although we agreed on several things, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and I tend to do, including the need for the data bubble between the police and the CPS, I think a review might help to make things happen. When I was a Minister, I used to resist reviews, again and again. But occasionally I had to agree to them and I actually found, where I managed to stay as Minister for a reasonable period, that they were incredibly useful in driving the department to be more effective and proactive. The truth is that we need the right sort of data, and we need to reduce paperwork to release resources for front-line policing. Luckily, in this debate, we have all got the same objective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Cash
“Recording of biological sex in police data(1) Every police force in England and Wales must, in respect of any individual who is arrested, charged with an offence, or issued with a caution or penalty notice, record the biological sex of that individual.(2) For the purposes of this Act, “biological sex” means—(a) the male or female sex recorded at birth, or(b) where a Gender Recognition Certificate has been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the sex recorded on that certificate.(3) Where official documents presented at the point of arrest do not reflect the biological sex as defined in subsection (2), the discrepancy must be noted separately. (4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to ensure consistency of recording and to prevent reliance on administrative records altered on the basis of self-identification alone.”
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 438B, the wording of which is intended to be replaced by Amendment 438EF. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for supporting this amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for reminding us about the general direction of travel taken by the Government in this area: the views expressed by the Home Secretary and others over the last six months about improving data collection and, again, in the White Paper, the objective to make data collection more consistent nationally. All of that is extremely welcome.
Sex is a foundational principle in crime. By that I mean the sex of an individual is a primary determinant of both offending patterns and victimisation risks. So, it is a crucial piece of information in terms of the overall justice system at every point. For example, 98% of recorded rape offenders are male, and roughly nine in 10 suspects in serious violent offences are male, and those proportions have remained significantly consistent over time. This information underpins offender profiling, multi-agency public protection arrangements, domestic abuse risk models, custody practice and the Government’s own crime strategies, as we have just been hearing. If sex were not a material variable, none of those systems would function as they do.
Despite this, at the moment there is no consistent national standard for what sex means in police recording systems. In some forces it means biological sex, in others it may reflect self-declared gender. In others, the two are conflated or left ambiguous. In some systems, records can be altered without clear audit. The same offender committing the same offence can therefore be recorded differently depending on the force or the system. That produces incoherent national datasets, undermines comparability between forces and also degrades—talking about AI and information collection—trend analysis.
This is a massive problem, because police data is the entry point for the entire criminal justice system. It feeds directly into that risk assessment, offender management, safeguarding decisions, prison allocation, probation supervision and national crime statistics. If the data is unstable at the point of entry, everything downstream is compromised. It is not just my view; this concern has been reinforced by repeated warnings from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the Office for National Statistics, which have consistently found that police-recorded crime data is highly sensitive to inconsistent recording practices.
Where the system is already struggling with data quality, it is incredibly important that the core variables are clear, standardised and grounded in the facts. It is not a hypothetical situation and we know that Scotland has already tested the alternative and made the necessary changes. For several years, Police Scotland, like forces in England and Wales, was recording sex in the basis—at times—of self-declared gender, including for suspects in sexual offences. The result was that biological males charged with rape could be recorded as female, rendering national statistics unreliable and damaging overall public confidence in the system. After sustained scrutiny, it announced in October 2025 that biological sex would be recorded for crime and policing purposes, with any transgender status recorded separately where relevant. Operational reality forced that correction, which has been welcomed by the public.
The independent experts have also supported that measure. The Government-commissioned review led by Alice Sullivan found that public bodies, including justice agencies, have allowed sex to be redefined or replaced, which degrades the data quality. The conclusion is very clear in her review. In all areas, including crime, sex should mean biological sex, and, where gender identity is recorded, it should be recorded separately, not substituted. Murray Blackburn Mackenzie’s analysis showed that, once sex recording drifts from biological reality, crime statistics become unreliable, contested and incapable of supporting sound policy or public trust. When one thinks about the very small numbers of women in the numbers I have just related in respect of violent offences, for example, one can see that wrong data could massively skew this.
The same issue arises in offender risk. Official Ministry of Justice analysis shows that men who identify as women have offending profiles aligned with the male offender population; trans women and men have the same offending profile, including for violent and sexual offences. To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that trans women are in any way more inclined than the average man to commit offences, but in population profiles, the same rate of offences is perpetuated within that population—male pattern violence does not change through identity declaration. When men are recorded as female in police data, male violence is understated, female offending is overstated and risk analysis is distorted. This really matters for repeat offender analysis, escalation risk and, most importantly, safeguarding.
We have already seen the consequences of ignoring biological sex in custodial settings. In England, we have had assaults occurring through the placement of men in the female prison estate. The Government responded to this by tightening allocation rules, explicitly re-anchoring decisions in biological sex and risk assessment. That policy recognises the basic truth that biological sex is a material safeguarding factor in criminal justice. That is a well-established principle among criminologists. Police data is the upstream source for those decisions.
This matters massively for the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy relies on police-recorded crime data to measure prevalent trends and progress. It rests on two empirical facts. Women and girls are disproportionately the victims of certain crimes—I hope there is no one in this House who would dispute that—and those crimes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. If police data cannot reliably identify male offenders because sex has been replaced by gender identity then progress cannot be measured and accountability collapses.
There is nothing in this amendment that would alter how the police should interact with transgender people or that would prevent gender identity being recorded separately where operationally relevant. It does not seek to change how individuals are treated. It simply seeks to ensure that biological sex is not lost or overwritten, because all the evidence shows that it matters. A criminal justice system that cannot accurately record the sex of offenders simply cannot accurately analyse male violence or protect women effectively. That is why I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have enthusiastically added my name to Amendment 438B, now replaced by Amendment 438EF, on the recording of biological sex in police data to prevent reliance in administrative records on self-identification and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has laid out the arguments with great clarity and precision, and I appreciate that. In the past, I have tabled similar amendments to previous Bills. Unfortunately, my attempts were far less elegantly argued than hers, but they were rebuffed, as though I was motivated by some ideological attempt at undermining inclusion policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that I want ideology out of data and data collection.
I think there is a slightly different atmosphere now, and I hope that we can have this discussion. Since then, the Supreme Court’s clarity on equality law in the distinct category of biological sex in relation to single-sex provision gives us an important marker. We have had the Sullivan review, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunak’s Government. Its themes were broadly welcomed, I think, by the present Government, which are to identify obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and gender in public bodies and in the research system and to set out good practice.
I state at this point that we owe huge thanks to Professor Alice Sullivan for her 226-page review. It was a real work of public service. It found that the recording of sex and gender across the justice system and police forces is highly inconsistent and in a muddle, and therefore is not reliable. This matters, because anything that erases biological sex or confuses biological sex in official data in relation to crime is problematic. Many of the policies in the Bill, if they are to be effective, rely on evidence, and that evidence must therefore be based on reliable data.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I just looked about my person at my identification documents and found my House of Lords pass, which at least at this point does not record my birth sex. I suppose “Baroness” might arguably do the trick—or not, I do not know. I suspect it would not be enough for the supporters of these two amendments. I also looked in my handbag, and my two bank cards do not record anything approximating my biological sex.
In an earlier group, I heard noble Lords opposite speak very compellingly about what the police are up against and how they are tearing their hair out because of the bureaucracy. Last week, I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular and other noble Lords opposite when they spoke to an amendment to ensure that, were there to be digital ID, the police could not demand that information on request in the street. A number of noble Lords made very strong and passionate speeches on that issue.
I wonder about the workability and the wider consequences of the amendment, were it to be added to primary legislation. It is very broad in scope, dealing with anybody who is subject to arrest or a charge or caution for any offence. It would place a firm obligation on the police to record the person’s birth sex and any discrepancy between that and what the person identifies as or what is on any documents that they present. How on earth is this to work without, I suspect, far more intrusive searching than is necessary for every offence, from a minor public order protest offence to shoplifting to insider trading? In each scenario, the police would be required to make a determination of the person’s biological sex, requiring a fairly intrusive examination and challenging and questioning. That would be quite a traumatic and degrading experience for anyone and might be disproportionate to the offence being investigated.
I agree that crime can be highly gendered; we know that because all we have learned about violence against women and girls, but I fail to see that this kind of determination is necessary at the point of arrest for insider dealing or even for a protest offence. And, if we are talking about headaches for the police, I can imagine in a large protest every arrestee being briefed by their comrades and colleagues deliberately to identify in a mischievous way just to give the police a headache.
I ask noble Lords to think again about the contradictions in the positions that they are taking on this very long Bill. Workability, proportionality and whether this kind of intrusion into the lives of not just people who have changed sex or are transexual but of anybody who is subject to arrest and charge, particularly a woman with short hair, for example. I am reading stories about women who have had mastectomies for breast cancer being challenged in gym changing rooms because of the way they look.
I ask noble Lords to think about the wider consequences and the proportionality of what they propose.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. All of us who care about the safety, security, integrity and autonomy of women are also concerned about, for instance, a so-called trans-inclusive strip search policy which allows, for instance, a 6 foot 4 inch man who self-identifies as a woman to search a very vulnerable young woman at a police station. That is an issue of great concern, and were we to adopt this amendment, it might be ameliorated.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but that is a separate issue—it is about who is allocated to which duty at the police station, and it is perfectly reasonable for the police themselves to organise who conducts a strip search and who conducts a strip search on whom. That is not what the first or second version of the amendment is about; it is about an obligation on the police to make a determination of the biological sex of anybody they are arresting, charging or cautioning. It comes from noble Lords who, as I understand it, oppose compulsory digital ID that could conceivably require some determination at the point of registration. I applauded those compelling speeches last week from noble Lords about that being too much of an intrusion on the citizen who is innocent until proved guilty at the point of encounter with the police. How are the police going to do this?
Baroness Cash (Con)
I have never spoken in this Chamber on digital ID; I want to make that clear for the record, because the noble Baroness used the plural in talking about all those present. I also want to come back on her very emotional intervention, for which I am grateful as she clearly feels very passionately about this. Most of us have more confidence in the police than she may be demonstrating, because a lot of this is common sense, as the public at large understand. Some 50% of the population are women and girls, and they deserve to be protected. The number of people we are referring to is very small, but among that number are some really bad actors. This is a foundational principle of our criminal justice system, so how does she square the emotional circle in saying that this is not possible without infringing rights?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As a woman, I have often been called emotional in debate, but that is the nature of the patriarchy. I did not mean to be emotional; I am just trying to ask about the practicality of this proposed obligation on the police to be the determiners of the biological sex of a person they arrest, not for sex offences but for any offence. I heard in some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for example on the importance of knowing as much about a prisoner as possible, an argument for making a clear determination in a prison setting, because one needs to determine who should be imprisoned with whom. I understand that. I can certainly envisage this being highly proportionate and relevant for arrest and investigation for sex offences, but that is not the breadth of this proposal. This is for any arrest, charge, caution or suspect, which would be overbroad and a complete administrative and practical nightmare for police officers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can the noble Baroness clarify a couple of things? First, does she recognise any problems at all about the data as it is presently collected—in different forms by different police forces, and then used as national crime data as though it is reliable and consistent? Does she have any qualms? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, would be happy to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, as great legal minds working together, emotionally or non-emotionally, on better wording. I can understand that, but the import of this is the data.
Secondly, the noble Baroness rightly points out that many of us are committed to campaigning against violence against women and girls. How can we reliably know how many women and girls are victims of such violence or who the perpetrators of that violence are? We cannot just assert it unless we have reliable statistical data. That is the point of the Sullivan review, which I hope she would show some respect towards even if she is not quite clear that she supports this amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
To be clear, a perpetrator is someone who is convicted, not anyone who is arrested. As I tried to suggest in response to the comments about incarceration, it is much easier to justify greater intrusion at the point of conviction, particularly if someone is going to prison. I do not think this is about drafting; it is about the practical policy the amendments are proposing. How on earth is it viable to put this obligation to be the determiner and decision-maker over somebody’s biological sex? Is it reasonable to put that on every constable? I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, because he served as a police officer for many years and with some distinction. He may know better than I whether this will be welcome for police officers in their everyday duties, for every arrest and every offence.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I have attached my name to this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has been courageously raising these issues of gender identity and sex, over many years and before it was fashionable, through the prism of wishing to protect the safety and security of women. I applaud her for that. I also thank my noble friend Lady Cash, who speaks with great professional expertise and experience.
Notwithstanding the passionate case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, it is surely the case that policy, particularly when we are dealing with sensitive issues such as crime data and violence against women and girls, which is rightly a government priority, should be formulated and delivered on the basis of robust, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence. Who can logically argue against that? That is what the amendment is principally about.
We have heard about the Sullivan standard. The context in which we are working in putting forward this amendment is that sex is a protected characteristic and the Equality Act 2010 has been clarified by the Supreme Court. It is extremely disappointing that the Equalities Minister, Bridget Phillipson, continues to obfuscate and delay proper timely guidance being issued by a number of bodies in respect of, for instance, access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court stated plainly that under the Equality Act, “sex” refers to the material reality of being female or male. That determines how single-sex spaces function in a mixed-sex society, from women’s changing rooms to prison, and justifies excluding men where doing so is necessary and proportionate. That remains the case, which is why this amendment is very important. It is in that context that it would hopefully be incorporated into the legislation.
As we know, the Sullivan review was commissioned in February 2024 with the aims of identifying obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and gender identity in public bodies and the research system, and setting out good practice guidance for how to collect data on sex and gender identity. Sullivan recommended that:
“Data on sex should be collected by default in all research and data collection commissioned by government and quasi-governmental organisations … The default target of any sex question should be sex (in other words, biological sex, natal sex, sex at birth). Questions which combine sex with gender identity, including gender identity as recognised by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) have a mixed target”.
She also recommended that:
“The Home Secretary should issue a mandatory Annual Data Requirement (ADR) requiring the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales and the British Transport Police (BTP) to record data on sex in all relevant administrative systems. Relatedly, police forces should cease the practice of allowing changes to be made to individual sex markers on the Police National Computer (PNC)”.
This is about public trust. That is why my noble friend is quite right to refer to the situation of Police Scotland, which in November 2025 moved officially to record the biological sex of all suspects. The chief constable stated that it will ensure that
“by recording accurately biological sex, our crime data is accurate”.
The Scottish experience proves that it is possible to maintain a respect-based approach in person, using preferred pronouns in custody, while ensuring that the official record reflects the material facts needed for “statistical rigour”. The deputy chief constable of Police Scotland, Alan Speirs, confirmed that recent legal rulings provide the necessary clarity that “sex” in law refers to biology. This gives police the mandate to record it as such without infringing on the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act.
If police forces do the wrong thing on this, it can result in calamitous situations. I declare my interest as a member, at least for the next month, of the British Transport Police Authority. The British Transport Police, without any proper guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council or Ministers, decided unilaterally in autumn 2024 to launch a transitioning and non-binary search guidance policy, which meant that even individuals without a GRC were permitted to search anyone, including a woman, provided that the person doing the searching, for instance, said that they were a woman—even though they were a biological man.
That advice was quickly rescinded. I argued, as a member of the authority, that it was a disastrous mistake. It cost many thousands of tax pounds in legal fees that the force has had to pay as a result. The organisation Sex Matters launched a possible judicial review against that decision. It took the focus away from policing, front-line activities and operational efforts in order to engage in virtue signalling on the basis of the preferences of the chief constable and the senior officers at the British Transport Police. It did not do anything about the 11% clear-up rate for offences of violence against women and girls that, unfortunately, remains prevalent on the transport network in this country.
I cannot understand how any noble Lord, on the basis of tackling crime and the objective of having the data available to allocate resources properly, can realistically argue against the amendment because it has the background of the Sullivan review and Ministers’ acceptance of the Supreme Court ruling in 2025. On that basis, the Ministers should look benignly on the amendment, because it is not onerous and draconian; it is realistic, fact-based and based on empirical research. Therefore, it should be adopted because, if nothing else, it would greatly improve the efficacy of this largely important Bill, which we on this side support. It would mean that police officers could properly address the issues with the facts behind them, rather than the ideological absolutism that unfortunately marked much of the debate and the hostility to collecting data in the criminal justice system on the basis of gender identity rather than sex. It is a good amendment, and I hope that the Ministers will be able to support it.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a great legal mind, I am afraid; I am not even a legal mind. Many people would argue that I am not a great mind either, so I have questions rather than a dictatorial philosophy.
The contrast between the original amendment and the one before us is quite revealing. “Biological” was taken out of the title, yet the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, said she thought that biological sex was a material fact, so why was it taken out of the heading?
There was a very interesting reference to the gender recognition certificates, which I took a little bit of comfort from. Then, in the amendment before us, that reference was deleted. My second question is: is the reference to “official documents” being “proffered” regarded as the substitute? I would be very grateful for that clarification.
Perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench could answer this in his summing up: what assurances can we have that anyone accused is not forced out, even if the particular allegation is not related to sex and sexuality? How can we avoid people having to come out against their will?
I am still not sure why this issue is regarded as so vital. I am sorry, but there seems to be a lack of proportionality about this whole debate in the massive challenges that our police forces have today. Is it really that vital? I am not terribly convinced about that. I have questions more than anything, but I feel there is some disproportionality on this whole subject.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
The noble Lord was not here at the start of the debate.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
The noble Lord was not here at the start of the debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this, as usual, heated debate about recording data. I will focus mainly on data in my response from these Benches.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for starting by quoting some data sources, but neither she nor the amendment acknowledges the existing police guidance about capturing demographic data and annual data requirement 153, all the work already being done by the National Police Chiefs’ Council to review these policies following the April 2025 Supreme Court judgment, and its desire to develop a national standard for recording protected characteristics. In November last year, an equality impact assessment for the Law Enforcement Data Service noted:
“There is no legal obligation on any person with a GRC to inform the police that they have changed their name or gender”.
It is vital that data collection by public bodies has a clearly defined purpose and scope, and that staff have the right training and guidance to deliver services that support and accommodate all service users.
In addition, the Home Office produces the annual data requirement, which sets out requests and requirements for data that police forces should collect and report to the Home Office. Some are mandatory, some are voluntary. Requirement 153, which I referred to earlier, is voluntary and details how forces should capture demographic data
“in a consistent way by aligning it to ONS census 2021”.
This sets out that data about sex
“should be recorded in line with information on … birth certificate or gender recognition certificate”.
At the moment, it is not clear how widely this has been adopted.
Since 1974, the police national computer has been the main database of criminal records and is used by front-line officers from all police forces in the UK to understand who they are interacting with. In 2016, the Home Office established the national law enforcement data programme to replace the PNC and PND with the Law Enforcement Data Service or LEDS—sorry, another acronym. That will replace the existing PNC capability across all police forces this coming March.
The equality impact assessment for LEDS was published in November 2025 and considered how the programme would impact on those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The EIA states:
“There is no legal obligation on any person with a GRC to inform the police that they have changed their name or gender. Where a person does wish this to be acknowledged then LEDS user can add an Information Marker”.
The EIA notes that the NPCC is undertaking a policy review following the April 2025 Supreme Court judgment, which
“aims to strike a balance that is both lawful and respectful of all individuals involved”—
that is a quote from the judgment—and that
“LEDS is being built to configure new policies as they take effect”.
The EIA also notes that a working group on national protected characteristics data recording standards was established by the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Coordination Committee and the NPCC diversity, equality and inclusion lead. It is important to note, as has been mentioned by others, that the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers considered the definition of “woman” only for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
In addition to that, I have found an FoI dated May 2025 and the ONS response on a question about the collection of data. It gives a somewhat detailed response to about 10 different questions on how many people who have undertaken gender reassignment have been convicted of certain offences or groups of offences. Under the category of collection of data for gender identity, which is different from the sex registered at birth category, it says:
“We have to be robust enough to provide reliable estimates”.
It cannot provide reliable estimates. Why? Because the numbers are so low. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, knows, as she has been quoting data quite a bit, if you cannot rely on the data because it is low compared with the millions of women across the country, it becomes a problem to be able to include it. Why? Because the data will not show, or, if it is pulled out separately, individuals will become identifiable to the public. That is the fundamental problem.
So, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is already undertaking work to review policies in light of the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court judgment was limited in considering the meaning of “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act, not for wider legislation or policy. Frankly, it is unclear how this amendment would be practically workable; front-line police forces would be asked to challenge information provided about an individual’s sex. It is also unclear how the amendment would be consistent with data protection legislation, the Gender Recognition Act, and, indeed, Article 8 rights to a private life.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
The noble Lord has the right to speak in Committee, of course. Conventionally, we tend not to hear from Back-Benchers after the Front Benches have started winding, but of course he has the right.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz. I will make three very brief points. The first is that the Supreme Court judgment had a logic behind it, and it is very difficult to see how that logic does not roll out across a whole bunch of issues such as this one. So this amendment relates very strongly to that Supreme Court judgment.
The second point is that the three noble Baronesses talking against the amendment were trying to say, “Well, what point would it have?” Yet the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, stated that there had been reports that the amount of crime, including violent crime, committed by females had increased, and that this had caused some kind of minor moral panic in society. Now, we know that women—biological women—have far lower rates of offending than men, whether non-violent or violent. Our understanding of the role of women in society is very much driven by that understanding of the civilising impact of womanhood on society. It is fundamental to our ideas of how society works.
If we are persuaded by false data that the role of women is changing—that women are becoming more violent, that women are becoming more criminal—our view of society will be very different. That would be unfortunate, if it is false.
Finally, the objections made by the noble Baronesses to this amendment, other than those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not fundamentally dispute the premises but merely argued about the practicability—indeed, as did some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. If we are to talk about practicability, first, we have the evidence that Scotland has already implemented this, so arguments against practicability fall away.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti —that you are putting an onus on a policeman to respond to somebody claiming a particular sex or gender, when in fact that may not be correct—was given the lie by her own statement that there are lots of people who are happy to come to a police station and confuse things by deliberately giving the wrong information. Basically, she is saying that, when a policeman is confronted by a six-foot bloke who says that he is a woman, it is difficult to confront that person. This is set against the very correct concern she had about a woman with short hair or whatever who looks a bit man-like, as many do, being challenged on saying that she is a woman.
If they can sort that out in Scotland, they can sort that out in the UK. But, in the meantime, which would you prefer: that data is falsified and moral panics emerge, or that police have a slightly bigger onus to try to ascertain the true biological sex of an individual?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cash both for bringing forward this amendment and for the clarity with which she set out the problem that it seeks to address. I speak in support of the amendment. It is fundamental to our safety and justice system that police data is accurate and fit for purpose.
I am grateful for the warm words that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, spoke about me. I hope that I will not disappoint her too much when I say that sex is not an incidental characteristic in policing or criminal justice: it is a foundational variable. Patterns of offending, particularly in relation to serious violence, sexual offences, domestic abuse and repeat high-harm crime are profoundly sex-disaggregated.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that police forces depend on this data to analyse trends, assess risk, deploy safeguarding interventions and evaluate whether strategies, including those endorsed by your Lordships’ House, are actually working. If police records cannot reliably distinguish males from females, risk assessment collapses, trend analysis becomes unreliable and the very legislation that we pass to make the public safer is frustrated.
We have already seen what happens when biological sex is replaced with self-declared gender identity. As has already been mentioned, in Scotland, Police Scotland permitted suspects’ sex to be recorded on the basis of self-identification, including in serious sexual offences. The consequences were predictable and serious: incoherent statistics, loss of public confidence and an inability to analyse male violence accurately. After sustained scrutiny, Police Scotland reversed that policy in October 2025 and confirmed that biological sex would be recorded, with transgender status noted separately where relevant. That reversal was driven by operational reality, not ideology, and it offers a clear lesson for England and Wales.
Independent expert evidence reinforces this point. The Government-commissioned review led by Professor Alice Sullivan was unequivocal: sex should mean biological sex and, where gender identity is relevant, it should be recorded separately, not substituted. Similar conclusions have been reached by independent analysis examining the consequences of degraded data across public bodies. Once sex data is compromised, statistics become contested, safeguarding weakens and public trust is eroded.
There are also real-world safeguarding implications. Ministry of Justice analysis shows that trans-identified male offenders exhibit offending patterns aligned with the male population, including for violent and sexual crimes. Recording such individuals as female underestimates male violence, artificially inflates female offending and distorts risk analysis.
We have already seen the downstream consequences in the prison estate, where serious safeguarding failures led the Government to tighten allocation rules. Biological sex is a material risk factor; police data is upstream of all this and, if it is wrong at the point of arrest or charge, the entire system is compromised.
There is a theme running through many of our debates today: good policing is inextricably linked to good data. The Government have acknowledged this. Biological sex is just one of the data variables that must be recorded for accurate policing, so I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendment and I hope the Minister will, too.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendment 438B and the subsequent Amendment 438EF, which seek to mandate the collection of sex data on perpetrators of crime. I thank everybody who spoke with some force and passion on a debate that certainly was not dry and simply about data. We heard the views of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the opposition Front Benches.
Before I go any further, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, we are absolutely resolute in our goal, expressed in the violence against women and girls strategy published before Christmas, to halve violence against women and girls over the decade. We recognise that it takes a whole-government, indeed a whole-society, approach, but we are resolute in doing that and the issues that we are discussing in this group are germane to that effort.
However, there are already powers available to the Home Secretary to obtain data from police forces. The question is whether these are adequate. Section 44 of the Police Act 1996 gives the Home Secretary powers to obtain relevant data from chief constables. This power, which noble Lords have mentioned in the debate on this group, is exercised through an annual data requirement which sets out what data should be recorded and provided to the Home Office. Such data is routinely published as official statistics to provide a window on the work of government and the police service.
The content of the annual data requirement is reviewed annually and, where new requirements are made out, it allows collections to be added or existing ones amended. However, we accept that these powers fall short of what is required. Not to presage the next group too heavily, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, will be aware that, in December last year the Home Secretary announced that we will legislate to mandate the recording of suspects’ ethnicity data. This will happen at the earliest opportunity as part of our wider legislative proposals on police reform, which we announced in the White Paper on police reform published yesterday.
As announced in that White Paper, we are introducing key proposals to address the fragmentation of data across police forces and recording formats. In that White Paper, which I commend to your Lordships, we say that we will work with the police to introduce a number of measures around data—for instance, developing new technology to integrate data nationally; mandating national standards on data to create consistency in recording data across police forces and improve the quality of datasets; introducing a single national decision-maker with authority over key national datasets; and removing unnecessary barriers to data sharing across police forces and agencies. This will provide the necessary statutory powers to ensure the delivery of recommendation 4 of the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and will improve the integrity of the data that the police use, collect and analyse.
Furthermore, I agree that consistent and accurate data on sex needs to be recorded, and we are carefully considering the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that clarified the definition of sex in the Equality Act.
In replying directly to my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s question about thinking about it from the individual’s perspective, and what they may or may not want to happen in terms of their gender identification, it is still fair to say that the data collected will be anonymised and treated as per current GDPR and other data protection terms. This is about collecting data for wider analysis rather than thinking about what might happen to that individual from the way that that data is collected.
I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, of the work going on in this area. In light of this and our commitment in the White Paper to bring forward legislation in the context of our wider reforms to policing, I ask that she withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
May I just clarify one question? Could the noble Lord explain the Government’s attitude to the Sullivan review? When are they going to act on it? It is very comprehensive and I understood that the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, were perfectly positive about it but, like too many reviews, it sits there, with all that hard work, data collected and intellectual energy, and is not acted upon. If it had been, these amendments would not be necessary. Maybe the noble Lord could give us a timeline to clarify that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, there was certainly a lot of work done. I believe that it was commissioned by the previous Government, so it overlaps from the previous Administration into ours. I am not sure that I can provide a concrete timeline from the Dispatch Box, so I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with those details.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to everyone who has spoken and to the winding speakers today. It is such an important question, and it is such a pleasure to have a debate like this and to engage with former colleagues and noble Peers to discuss an often emotional or passionate issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have known each other for such a long time, but not everyone knows that. I believe that I may have referred to the noble Baroness with a pronoun during my speech, and I am very sorry if I did that; it was a lapse from knowing each other and I want to put that on the record. I am very grateful to her for speaking with her typical compassion and empathy for everyone—a testament to her time as the head of Liberty, and the principles that she has lived by ever since.
I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and I am very grateful to her for engaging in this debate and being present. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for citing the data, and noble Peers who supported the amendments. I am very grateful to everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, referenced Scotland. I would like to end on that thought. There is, of course, a direction of travel by the Government, which we welcome and support, but in his response the noble Lord, Lord Katz, did not address what data is going to be collected in relation to sex. I know we are coming on to ethnicity next. I say to the Minister that this is an opportunity to grapple with this issue and to do something by accepting this amendment, which would really support the violence against women and girls strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also made some very sensible points about the common-sense approach of the police, and we have confidence in them to be able to act in a sensible way. For the record, there is no suggestion in this amendment that anyone would be embarrassed or outed. It is about the police recording the data, not publishing the data. We know that data, when the statistics are processed off it, is anonymised.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful for that last point. The point I raised was that the data is so small that if only two people had committed a certain offence in a year, they would be identifiable. That was the point the ONS made in its response to somebody else’s FoI request—I do not know whose—because of that identification and then breaching of data for the individual concerned.
Baroness Cash (Con)
That has not concerned His Majesty’s inspectorate, the Ministry of Justice or, indeed, Professor Sullivan. In fact, they make the opposite point, which is that the small numbers of trans-identifying individuals—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Is the noble Baroness prepared to push this to a vote or withdraw? We have had the debate. There is no need to rehash the argument that we have already had.
Baroness Cash (Con)
With enormous apologies, I was responding to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I would like to return to this subject on Report. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cash
“Recording of ethnicity in police data(1) Every police force in England and Wales must, in respect of any individual who is arrested, charged with an offence, or issued with a caution or penalty notice, record the ethnicity of that individual in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) The officer must record the police-observed ethnicity of the individual using the 18-category classification employed in the most recent Census for England and Wales.(3) Where the individual voluntarily states an ethnicity, the officer must also record the self-declared ethnicity, noting any difference from the police-observed ethnicity. (4) For the purposes of criminal-justice statistics, analysis, and publication under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the police-observed ethnicity shall be treated as the primary record.(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to ensure consistent recording and the uniform use of the Census ethnicity categories across all police forces.”
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—it is me again.
I very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for the White Paper, which I have skim-read—I will admit that I have not read it closely—and I welcome again its contents and direction of travel on this. I tabled this amendment because the White Paper does not go so far as making a statutory requirement around the reporting of data. It is my position that this is an opportunity for the Government to do that and, with one simple amendment, to make this requirement and enforce this consistency across all the reporting of the amendments.
This is not a new proposal. It is the 18-category standard proposal of ethnicity, which is a framework used in the UK census, first introduced nationally in 2001 and expanded in 2011 and 2021. That includes five broad ethnic groups: white mix, multiple Asian, Asian British, black African and Caribbean, black British and other, each with broad subcategories. The College of Policing, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services all recommend that self-defined ethnicity, not officer-led definitions or visual categories, be used in operational and statistical recording. In policing that is known as SDE, or the self-defined ethnicity standard.
Crucially, there is no statutory obligation to use this system, no uniformity across police forces and no enforcement if it is bypassed. That is the gap that this amendment seeks to close. The current reality is a patchwork of practices. Police officers are instructed to ask for self-defined ethnicity at various stages, but compliance with that is highly variable. In many cases they substitute visual shorthand, which is crude, unreliable and not comparable with either the census or the official data. Even where self-defined ethnicity is collected, the categories used are not always aligned with the full 18-category standard set.
We have a patchwork at the moment, with forces using different ways of defining ethnicity and not uniformly communicating or building a database. The result has been quantifiable gaps in current reporting. Victims’ ethnicity is often missing, undermining the understanding of harm. In 2023, His Majesty’s Inspectorate found that in 61% of all cases where a victim was identified, ethnicity was not recorded at all. That is not a technicality; it is a collapse of visibility over who is being harmed and how.
Similarly, stop and search data is increasingly incomplete. Home Office statistics show that in stop and search records, self-defined ethnicity is missing in 20% of cases. That is one in five encounters without proper identification, and that source is the Office for Statistics Regulation. Prevent referrals are particularly shocking and show chronic underrecording. Between 2015 and 2023, police failed to record the ethnicity of more than 33,000 Prevent referrals. I cannot imagine an area of policing and national security where the ethnicity of an individual referred might be more important.
Operational consequences for victims, offenders and public oversight also manifest from these absences. Victims go unseen if ethnicity is unrecorded; they cannot have services tailored to them, and violent crime prevention cannot be prioritised. We do not understand whether different communities are underreporting crime or, indeed, overreporting. In homicide—murder—data for the year ending March 2022, only 671 victims had their ethnicity recorded; the rest were either missing or excluded—that is from the Home Office’s own data reports. Without the full self-defined ethnicity data at each stage of police contact, we cannot fulfil our obligations under the Equality Act.
The 18-category of self-defined ethnicity is the gold standard. It has been highly commended by multiple public bodies. When the police rely on visual codes or simplified lists of their own, they often misclassify individuals. They lose comparability with the census or with NHS and education data, so there is no cross- reporting across our own public bodies. They also create a very dangerous vacuum where speculation and grievance thrive—we have seen that in media reporting of issues in the last few years, where tensions in communities build and demands are made for greater transparency.
The vacuum has happened in child sexual exploitation cases. In the Casey review in June 2025, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, reported that ethnicity data was missing in two-thirds of the cases. Public debate has become polarised about grooming gangs since, with both denial and exaggeration filling the vacuum where the facts and data should have been. In Prevent referrals, where ethnicity was unrecorded in the 33,000 cases I have just mentioned, communities have accused the state of Islamophobic bias; others say that Prevent is too soft. Again, there is no data to resolve the dispute or even have an informed debate on.
In high-profile arrests, where ethnicity is omitted—the Home Secretary herself has spoken about this—social media becomes saturated with speculation, particularly from extremist or far-right actors, and forces the police into reactive disclosures. The former Met officer, Dal Babu, has said that
“there will be an expectation for police to release information on every single occasion”
because there is such intense speculation from the far-right on social media. These vacuums of information and of data are really dangerous.
My appeal to the Government is that a statutory duty to record full self-defined ethnicity at every point of contact solves these problems and gives us standardised, comparable data to analyse and act upon. The costs would be minimal but the status quo is very expensive. If we do nothing and we do not require this accurate reporting, we have operational blind spots, cross- system breakdowns, reputational damage to the police, and litigation risk. It is also extremely difficult retrospectively to rebuild community engagement or to repair crises when the damage has been done and trust has collapsed.
Police leadership supports better recording. In September 2023, Steve Hartshorn, chair of the Police Federation, said that senior officers must be held accountable for failing to record victims’ ethnicity. It is not just a data issue; it is about accountability and fairness. In August 2025 the new College of Policing guidance supported the proactive release of ethnicity and nationality data where it strengthens trust and clarifies public understanding. In December 2025 senior police officials, including Gareth Edwards of the NPCC’s vulnerability knowledge and practice programme, spoke on this. I could go on. Noble Lords will already be familiar with some of them from past reporting on this very issue of transparency and trust.
It begins with visibility, a consistent system, and a mandatory requirement to record the data. I know that the Government’s sentiments and intentions are already in this direction of travel, and this is an opportunity to make it happen. I beg to move.
Death of a Member: Lord Flight
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on 24 January 2026. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Best Start Family Hubs
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the expected impact of the new Best Start Family Hubs in England.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we now know without doubt that Sure Start worked. It delivered twice as much in benefits as it cost, with positive impacts on health, SEND identification and educational outcomes. That is why the Government are investing over £500 million to rebuild crucial family services. Best Start Family Hubs will provide that essential support, from conception through the early years, to parents across the whole of England.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence on the impact of early years investment is compelling, as my noble friend the Minister has outlined. It matters for health, growth, skills and employment—almost every outcome we can imagine is improved by early intervention. What steps are being taken to ensure that child development and family support are given the priority they deserve, not just in the very welcome Best Start hubs but right across government?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As my noble friend mentions, early years is a real priority for this Government, starting with our plan for change and a national target by 2028 to increase the proportion of children achieving a good level of development when starting school. We have followed this up with statutory targets for every local authority, with each one tasked with producing ambitious local plans to deliver. Best Start Family Hubs are one vital element of the best start in life strategy but, as my noble friend mentions, this will have impacts right across government.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I should like to build on the noble Baroness’s question. Will the Minister advise whether this Government are still committed to Best Start Family Hubs supporting families with children who are older than five? It should go from nought to 19, or nought to 25 for SEND children, as the emphasis in their publications has been on what we might call the Sure Start age range of nought to five. What will the Government expect family hubs to provide in reducing parental conflict and providing support for separating and separated parents?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s involvement in setting up the family hub programme under the previous Government. I reassure him that Best Start Family Hubs will be open to all families with children aged nought to 19 and up to 25 for young people with SEND. They will be welcoming spaces where every family feels valued and confident to ask for help. They will be open to older children and they can become part of the local youth offer, including Young Futures hubs, where that makes sense locally—these programmes will be locally driven. We are working with other government departments to determine what additional services will be included in Best Start Family Hubs. That will be reflected in further guidance, which we will publish in spring 2026.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, how will Best Start Family Hubs reduce rather than deepen regional inequalities, particularly in areas with the highest child poverty rates, where pressure on local services is often greatest?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The commitment is to make sure that every local authority area has a family hub. Deprivation is one of the key factors in the programme. We want to make sure that all children benefit from the services on offer; it is down to local authorities to determine where their priorities are and how they can best help and give the support that families need.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, pilot schemes under which parents are trained, particularly by charities, to help other parents with the necessary skills in bringing up children are shown to have a high rate of success. What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities and schools to help build up such groups?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness references the value of the voluntary, community and faith sector. I reassure her that we are investing £2.25 million in five organisations to help with exactly the areas she is suggesting, to break down barriers and enable people to access services. We know from the Sure Start model that bringing parents and families together from a range of backgrounds is invaluable in helping them get the support they need. We hope to build on that model.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, families with children with special needs or disabilities often have very particular needs that are often overlooked. Can my noble friend expand on what services are being made available to those parent carers?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend, as always, raises an important point. We have committed in the best start in life strategy to having a children and family services practitioner in each family hub to support children and families with additional needs. We recognise just how significant demand is this year, particularly for early years. We look forward to the SEND reform White Paper, which will come out soon and help progress this further.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to hear the Minister acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who has offered huge leadership in this area. We on these Benches are very pleased to see the expansion of family hubs and even the choice of a name used in a Conservative paper on the subject from 2021—imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, I was not sure that the Minister addressed all my noble friend’s question, particularly in relation to families experiencing domestic abuse, parental conflict and separated parents. Saying that they need to consult across government to work out the additional services, with guidance in spring 2026, does not feel as clear an answer as I think she can give us.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness touches on an important point: we need to build on the good things from the Sure Start model and the good things that came out of the family hub model, bring them together and analyse the way forward. On working with parents, the model has proved that parents coming in will often get confidence from other parents in the hub helping them with support. Working with professional support in the hub, they can then be signposted to special services to give them the support they need. I cannot be more precise than that because things will develop in different ways in different areas, but there is a real determination to take advantage of all the cross-cutting themes that can come out of this. Parental relationships are one of those areas.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the House will have been surprised by recent reports about the number of children who start school and are not fully toilet trained and have very poor command of language. Does that not illustrate how we must invest more in parental skills to help people who are not natural parents learn how to be good parents and provide this essential development at that stage in the child’s early life?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. We recently had a whole Question devoted to the issue of toilet training and preparedness for life in school. Talking to reception teachers, I think that some of the examples they give are really disturbing. We have been through a very difficult time with Covid, but bringing families together and sharing experience is a very good substitute, particularly in areas where the natural community support and support from extended family might not exist anymore. That is one of the reasons why this development is so important.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed how much time the Government are spending on dealing with austerity and privatisation? We are having to deal with this problem only because the last Tory Government closed all these centres originally.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I believe that the Opposition now recognise that it was an enormous mistake to reduce the funding that went into Sure Start and family support. We are reaping the benefit of that decline in support. As one of the people on the front line in local authorities, I can tell noble Lords that it was one of the most difficult pieces of work that we had to do—reducing services that we knew delivered so well for families. I am delighted that we are now in a position to start rebuilding those services for the best outcomes for our young children coming through the system.
Asylum and Immigration: Children
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether a child’s rights impact assessment was conducted on the proposals affecting children in (1) Restoring Order and Control (CP1418), published on 17 November 2025, and (2) A Fairer Pathway to Settlement (CP1448), published on 20 November 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Policy development is ongoing for reforms across the across the asylum and immigration system. Child impact assessments will be conducted throughout the policy development process to consider the impact of the reforms on children, in accordance with Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, that is encouraging, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expects child rights impact assessments to be integral to policy-making from the outset. Deep concern about the likely impact of these proposals on children’s well-being and security and on child poverty have been expressed by, for instance, the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium, Barnardo’s and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Can my noble friend therefore give us an assurance that a child rights impact assessment will be not just conducted but published without further delay and that the principle he recently enunciated so well in this House will guide final decision-making: namely, that it is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give my noble friend the assurance that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies to ensure that we look at the safeguarding, welfare and best interests of the child. My noble friend will know that the proposals about which she has raised questions are subject to consultation up to 12 February. She will also know that I have suggested to her that we meet to discuss those issues outside the Chamber. I look forward to both her response to the consultation and her representations at any meeting we have.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that there is a very real danger that the need to deal with immigration puts the rights of children at risk. I was delighted to hear what he said, but I am not sure that is across every government department. The welfare of children is paramount, and the rights of children absolutely must not be imperilled by the need to deal with immigration.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness. She will know that the Government have to deal with issues to do with both illegal migration and managed migration. The proposals we are bringing forward are doing that. We are absolutely, 100% committed to doing that within the framework of our United Nations responsibilities and under legislation that both Houses of Parliament have passed previously. I am happy to direct the noble and learned Baroness to the consultation on these proposals, which closes on 12 February.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the impact of these proposals is not only personal to individual children—although, indeed, it is hard to think of a situation more likely to provide adverse childhood experiences than being a refugee or asylum seeker. What assessment has been made of the impact on local authorities: on children’s services, education, leaving care budgets and so on?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the reasons that the Government are looking at the issues of illegal migration and managed migration is to ensure that the United Kingdom is in a position to deal with both those issues in an effective way. The issues of illegal migration and unaccompanied children and managed migration are subject to consultation. One issue in that consultation is how and what support is given to appropriate children, because every child is different and every circumstance is different. The points that the noble Baroness raised are valid, and we are considering them as part of our overall policy.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
My Lords, what safeguards will be put in place to tackle any child destitution that will result from the withdrawal of support from families with failed asylum applications? Building on the last question, it will be a massive challenge for local authorities, but it will also be a huge challenge for local faith groups and community organisations that step in to support communities, whatever happens at national level.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend will know that one of the prime drivers of this Labour Government is tackling child poverty. That is not just child poverty at home but is also in relation to how we manage people who arrive in this country. If people are failed asylum seekers and they have been through an asylum system, the Government have to—this is part of the consultation—look at how we manage that issue and, in doing so, meet our obligations under the United Nations rights of the child convention. He is absolutely right about faith groups. I know that we are considering strongly how we manage to support people through this process and ensure, in relation to this Question, that the rights of the child remain central.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the criminal gangs currently conducting unlawful people-smuggling operations in the channel are, of course, targeting children as well as adults. However, this morning it was revealed that, under the Government’s one-in, one-out deal with France, only 281 illegal migrants have been removed, yet 350 have arrived. Does the Minister now accept that the deal with France is not working?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No, I do not, and I will tell the House why. This Government are committed to dealing with our partners in Europe on long-term challenges on migration. The Government that he supported did not make any deals with France, did not talk to the Belgians, did not talk to the Germans, did not talk to the Dutch, and allowed small boat crossings to grow. I am sorry, but I will not take lessons on the management of small boats from a Government who raised the level of small boat crossings to a level that we had to inherit and have to deal with. I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong on that. I will take him at any time to discuss that issue, in any place.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that this Question would probably have been unnecessary had the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child been embedded legislatively much sooner in English law, just as it already has been incorporated both in Wales and Scotland, where there is already a clear commitment to undertake children’s rights impact assessments?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The UK Government are committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I give that commitment to the noble Lord: that is what we are committed to. The policies that we are bringing forward, which are subject to consultation, will be in line with those policy objectives.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been in correspondence with the Home Secretary about children who disappeared from asylum accommodation in the UK: not one or two, but dozens and dozens of children. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when we might get an update on what happened to those children. Did they end up being exploited or trafficked when they disappeared? Every single one of those children’s lives matters. When will we be able to find out what happened to them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The last hotel that dealt with unaccompanied children was closed by the previous Government in January 2024. At the Home Office we are committed to working with local councils, the police and others to find out what has happened. It is a disgraceful episode that more than 472 children went missing from hotels up to January 2024. We think that about 428 children have now been found, following investigation, but that still leaves some 50 to 60 children who have gone missing. This Government will ensure that we work with local authorities, the police and third sector partners to locate those remaining children. We are going to try to make sure that that does not happen again, by changing the procedures under this Government.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Would my noble friend accept that politics is given a very bad name when people condemn Britain and say it is broken, when they were Ministers in Government—in fact, were Home Secretaries —and were responsible for breaking it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think that even the Opposition would agree that another party is welcome to Suella Braverman, in the current context. I have never shared the analysis or the objectives of the previous Government, or the previous Home Secretaries, on how we deal with illegal migration and the serious issues of managing our borders. We have just put through an immigration and asylum Act, which has set up a border command. We have agreed deals with France that are making some difference; we have agreed deals with Germany; and we are looking upstream with Iraq and other countries. We are working internationally. That is all in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government, who basically let this thing happen without any intervention, and those who now stand up and say they have the solutions are the ones who caused the problems.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, may I take my noble friend back to the question of child poverty? I very much appreciate his answers. Migrant children are disproportionately at the risk of child poverty. I am a great supporter of the Government’s child poverty strategy, but that will not help those children, largely because it is not easing the no recourse to public funds rule. There is a widespread consensus that these proposals, including some that I do not think will be consulted on, will make it worse. Could the noble Lord take that question of no recourse to public funds back to the Home Office, so it can take another look?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I say to my noble friend that there is a consultation. I will meet with my noble friend to discuss that, with Peers from the Government side who have made representations to me. We will listen to those representations. Ultimately, though, the Government have to act on these issues and when the consultation closes we will assess those responses accordingly.
Hospitality Businesses
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support hospitality businesses.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, hospitality businesses are fundamental to the life of our communities. As such, we are introducing permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and a £4.3 billion support package over three years to shield rate payers from bill increases following the revaluation. In addition, the Chancellor announced earlier today that every pub and live music venue will receive 50% off their new business rates on top of this support, and bills will be frozen for two years. Moving forward, we will review the valuation methodology for pubs and hotels as well.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s announcements are welcome, as far as they go, and will provide some short-term relief to three out of four pubs, but in three years’ time, when the discounts and the freeze end, bills will still rise by 76%. Also, there was nothing for hotels beyond a review of valuation methodology, despite the fact that hotels’ rates will rise by 115% over three years. Why do the Government not just apply the 20p discount that is allowed in legislation across the entire hospitality sector, instead of the current 5p? That proposal has the virtue of being much simpler and cleaner than endless reviews and freezes. Why is this relief restricted to three years, and when will the review of hotel rates be delivered?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Business rate reform has been on the agenda for the last number of Parliaments and this Government have taken it on. Since I came into government six months ago, I have been proud that our overall objectives have been about stability in our economy, bringing down inflation—it is on target for next year—and making sure that consumers have more money that they can spend in the hospitality industry. Alongside that, the review of overall business rates and the commitment of £4.3 billion mean that over a third of businesses will pay no business rates, over half of ratepayers will see no increases and 23% will see their bills going down. This is funded by targeting those with higher rateable values. Overall, while the main thing is bringing stability to the economy and bringing inflation down to make sure that consumers are spending, reform of revaluation is increasingly important as well.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, while, of course, there is a need for holistic reform of business rates—the Liberal Democrats have long proposed a commercial land- owner levy—in the short term, just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, suggested, reducing the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by 20p, as opposed to the Government’s 5p, would make a big difference. The whole retail and high street sector has been hit by this—not just pubs or hospitality—so does the Minister recognise that the current proposals, while welcome, are too small and narrow to help our high streets?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I clearly acknowledge that there are challenges in the economy that are not of the making of the last 18 months alone. Changing consumer behaviours post Covid are a challenge for our overall economy. However, to restate what I said before, we need to get the economy back on track overall and ensure that we have fiscal responsibility. This package alone will cost us £4.3 billion. The additional announcements today on pubs and live music venues take that even further. On average, that relief will be more than £1,600 per pub. We have to do all that while balancing the overall needs of the economy with fiscal responsibility, which the Government set out as major proposals.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, in my maiden speech last week, I spoke about the important role that local government can and should play in creating and curating place. With that in mind, does my noble friend the Minister agree that local authorities can be good and effective champions for the hospitality and retail sectors in their areas?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord to the Chamber and thank him for his question. The national government policy that has been announced since we came in is critical, and local government is an even more critical part of leadership in our communities. Not only do local authorities offer the vision and ability to enact what is relevant to each community but they are close enough to the hospitality sector and individual high streets to know what is needed. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions so far and look forward to working with him.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next, then we will go to the Conservative Benches.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, hospitality businesses across the south-west of England, particularly those in our coastal and rural areas beloved of tourists, suffer from an inability to attract staff in specialist roles. A major cause of this is a chronic lack of suitable housing, particularly due to planning restrictions and the popularity of second homes. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that housing is available for those seeking a career in hospitality in our rural and coastal communities? I note my interest as the owner of a hospitality business in Devon.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I believe the original Question was about helping the hospitality sector. The comment about housing is outside the purview of my domain of expertise as Minister for Investment. However, the Government are investing in young people’s futures holistically. We have seen a sharp decline in apprenticeships. We are trying to implement a new foundation apprenticeship to give young people a route into critical sectors. While I acknowledge that housing is a critical part of that, making the economy grow more holistically is a way that we can ensure that the hospitality sector works in its own right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can you please decide who is going to ask a question on the Conservative Benches?
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I listened very carefully to the Minister, but he did not answer the question about hotels, particularly family-run hotels. Their rates bills are going to rise by even more than pubs’ and there is no help coming for them. What are they to do? They run fantastic businesses, which attract people to rural areas in particular, but they face rises in their business rates of over 100% in April.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The department is in constant dialogue with all industry sectors, including the hotel sector. We are trying to balance support for the overall economy with the need to be fiscally responsible in this Parliament as well. We continue to take feedback and will respond to that, but today we are focused on cutting rates overall, which, as I have said, has been on the agenda within the last couple of Parliaments, but we have taken it head on.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I note the rather grumpy welcome from the Opposition for the measures that the Government have taken. I say, let the good times roll. This is a tremendous announcement, particularly for pub-goers and for gig-goers. However, is any consideration being given to add to these measures with some relief for recording studios, which are very much part of the R&D of the music industry and are generally accessible to the public as places that they can book for their private use?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s optimism for the positive steps taken today and generally, in the last five months of being in government, for the way that the economy is shaping up after the last couple of decades. The announcements made today were on the back of the £4.3 billion for rate revaluation and really focused on live music venues and pubs as well. Perhaps I could refer everyone to the Statement made an hour ago. If there are specific follow-ups, I can come back to that, but I do not have any further detail on those venues at the moment.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, the wider visitor economy, of which the hospitality industry is such a valuable part, is worth some £127 billion a year to the economy and 3.9% of all jobs. It is therefore a valuable export industry. Last year, for the first time for several years, the number of international visitors was down, and the ForwardKeys data for VisitBritain show an 11% drop in long-haul flights. This, as the Minister will know, follows on from several years of cuts to the VisitBritain grant in aid and the Great programme. What are the Government going to do to reverse that?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
There are a number of difficult choices that we are trying to make. The visitor economy is clearly a huge part of who we are and what we should be proud of in this country. The industrial strategy we have set out is around eight key sectors that have comparative advantage to us, but, again, all those are about how we can make the economy stronger overall so that we can have an attractive proposition for all our industries, including our hospitality and the tourism sectors.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, given that road safety must be paramount, would the Minister share with us the Government’s current thinking on drink-driving levels? Does he accept that drink-driving campaigners will never cease campaigning until they have zero drink-driving? What assessment have the Government made of the effect on our beleaguered and hard-pressed rural hubs if the levels were to be reduced further than they are now?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I will have to come back and write to the noble Lord specifically about the drink-driving regulations; I do not have that to hand for this Question. I can tell the noble Lord that this Government are committed to supporting the great British pub. Like many Peers who started their careers in the industry, I worked both as a waiter and as a barman. The Budget is looking not just at the commitments we can make financially but at positive licensing reforms overall, including the first national licensing policy framework. However, I will come back specifically to write to the noble Lord on the question of drink-driving.
TikTok: Bereaved British Parents
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the litigation brought by bereaved British parents against TikTok following the deaths of their children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
We are aware of the case brought in the United States. No parent should have to go through what these parents have. Our deepest sympathies are with those affected. We have commenced powers through the Online Safety Act to require information from services about a child’s online activity in the tragic event of their death. We have also established a data preservation process to ensure that services preserve relevant data. We are committed to making those powers work effectively.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Ellen Roome is one of a number of bereaved British parents who are suing TikTok. Ellen had been fighting for four years to get access to her son Jools’s social media account after he died performing a TikTok challenge. Digital data that should be preserved as evidence in the critical early period following a child’s death is not being requested and is routinely being deleted or lost. Justice must prevail. Will the Government ensure that there is automatic digital data preservation for every one of these tragedies so that they can be fully investigated?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are aware of calls to make the data preservation process faster. These are new powers and we are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the current process, working closely with Ofcom to do this. We are carefully considering any means that could allow relevant data to be preserved in a timely manner to ensure investigations are well informed and families get the answers they need.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the litigation alleges that TikTok’s algorithm deliberately promoted harmful content to children. That is exactly what we originally thought the Online Safety Act was going to help protect our children from, but that appears to be wrong. Will the Government, given their statement of strategic priorities, insert a statutory definition of safety by design and require Ofcom specifically to address addictive algorithms and compulsive design features?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of the Statement that the Technology Secretary made last week to initiate a short consultation looking at further measures that could be taken, which responds to some of the questions that underlie his question about the nature of social media use and actions that could be taken in response to parental and other requests to deal with it—for example, looking at breaks to stop excessive doomscrolling, or further enforcement of the law. That consultation will take place swiftly before the summer.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says—and I absolutely believe her—that she personally and the Government will do everything they can to address these issues. Is she aware that later today we will debate a group of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would very simply close the gap and ensure that coroners and the police have access to the digital and social media data they need? Those amendments would put an end to the unimaginable pain that families are going through, waiting to find out how and why their children died.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Yes, we are aware of those calls and those measures that have been put forward. We are working closely with Ofcom and the Chief Coroner’s office to understand how those would work. We are closely monitoring this and actively considering options to strengthen the process.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister please draw to the attention of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State the following facts about TikTok? In June 2025, TikTok announced that it would expand its investment and presence in the UK, proudly declaring:
“What underpins our continued growth is our deep commitment to safety”.
Two months later, in August, TikTok announced that it was going to fire almost all its content moderation team in the United Kingdom. One of those moderators said that, as part of their daily job, they were told to scrutinise 1,200 videos every working day. Does that give us confidence that TikTok is a company that can be trusted?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
All services operating in the United Kingdom must comply with the Online Safety Act. Ofcom is the regulator of online services and, when services fail to comply with the duties under the Act, it has enforcement powers to take action against them. We have made it very clear that Parliament has given those powers to Ofcom and the Government are backing Ofcom to use the measures in its remit to scrutinise the operation of services operating in the UK to provide the right environment for children and all users of social media here.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, as the mother of a tech-savvy 16 year-old, access to social media is a topic of discussion in our household and among her friends. They do not believe an outright ban will work. Parents who have suffered incredible loss have also voiced differing views on how we keep children safe online, which is why I believe a consultation is the best way to proceed. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will make sure that all views are considered in the consultation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight the fact that we all share the objective of a safe online space, but one where children and others can benefit from the digital world and the digital economy. Navigating that and getting the right measures in place was the subject of some debate in this House last week, which showed exactly how defining these parameters and the way in which we proceed will take a short amount of time. On her question about how to ensure that we hear the voices of all, that is exactly what we intend to do during the course of this consultation, particularly the voice of young people.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, bereaved parents in this case say that they repeatedly warned platforms about dangerous content but were ignored until their children so tragically died. What assurance can the Minister give that victims’ families are now being listened to directly by regulators, rather than having to resort to the courts to be heard?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a point about the effectiveness of the regime as it stands and future developments. As I mentioned, we are looking carefully at how the regime is working currently, at the timeliness of the preservation of data, and at the communication of those steps. As she also knows, further measures will come into force over the coming year or so. Ofcom and others are consulting on measures that will take those further requirements forward for categorised services.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are being asked to introduce a legal compulsion to force big tech companies to preserve the relevant data. Why do we not just do it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have put in place powers under the Data (Use and Access) Act, which established the data preservation process, to require Ofcom, when notified by a coroner, to issue a data preservation notice to the specified online service companies. Since coming into force on 30 September, Ofcom has issued at least 12 data preservation notices. As I mentioned, we are looking carefully at how this is working, at the speed at which this is taken forward and at what more needs to be done.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is the Minister confident that TikTok can be trusted when looking at the interests of children and young persons? Yes or no, please.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have set a regime. This House passed the Online Safety Act. It is a regime supervised by Ofcom. We have given Ofcom the resources it needs to supervise against the Online Safety Act. We have made it clear that we back the use of those powers and, as we have seen recently, the Government are prepared to make it clear that they stand behind Ofcom in taking action where that is seen to be fitting.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Australia has already instituted a ban. I welcome the consultation that was announced last week. Will we look at Australia’s experience and try to interpret the experience of other jurisdictions in carrying out the consultation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there are other practices in other jurisdictions. We should absolutely learn from their experience of taking measures to protect children online and how they are enacted, and look at the effect on both the social media space and on children.
Built Environment Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, these 29 Motions give effect to the rotation rule that is applied each January, following the recent meeting of the Committee of Selection, to secure a regular turnover of Select Committee membership. They also appoint and establish the membership of the 2026 special inquiry committees. I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who are rotating off committees for their commitment and dedication, and welcome those noble Lords who will be joining the hard-working committees of the House. I beg to move.
Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 December 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 January.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 438C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, on the recording of ethnicity in police data. I do not profess to have the noble Baroness’s expertise in this area in terms of her work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission or as a distinguished lawyer, but her aspiration to have clear, consistent and transparent data is increasingly important for politics and with the public, which is why I wanted to speak.
Following on from the Casey review, the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced that collecting ethnicity and nationality data in child sexual abuse and exploitation cases would become a mandatory requirement. This recommendation to collect targeted information was made after the review had found that there was a paucity of data nationally concerning the ethnicity of perpetrators who were part of the rape grooming gangs. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, had found that, as we have already heard, only three local policing areas, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, had such data.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, concluded that while this was sufficient evidence to show that there were “disproportionate numbers” of men from Asian and specifically Pakistani heritage among the suspects, as well as those convicted, that conclusion had been avoided for too long. She criticised official “obfuscation” that misled the public.
Yvette Cooper concluded:
“While much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from these findings”.
I think that sums up a very positive development. It recognises that we need to collect more data on ethnicity if we are not to get ourselves into a political scandal, which the grooming gangs question was, and not to obscure the detail. Local residents, members of the public and, of course, victims felt very frustrated that these things were not allowed to come out.
With much more acceptance of the positive role of acknowledging ethnicity and data in the wind, we should look at expanding that. This much more open approach now needs to be applied to crime statistics more generally. In fact, in this new atmosphere, the issue has also affected policing. In the wake of the Southport murders of those three little girls, the police slowness in releasing the details of the suspected perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, when he was arrested, caused immense political tensions, as we know. The almost wilfully misleading description of the suspect as a 17 year-old from Lancashire who was originally from Cardiff led to a sort of pseudo form of misinformation, creating an information vacuum that led to false rumours. Misinformation started online that the killer was a Muslim asylum seeker, which was completely incorrect.
Accurate data and accurate descriptions play a valuable role. The Met Police chief, Sir Mark Rowley, declared that it was right to release the ethnicity of suspects, pointing out the importance of being
“more transparent in terms of the data”
that the police release. This amendment is trying to make sure that the data collected is accurate. It is not just a debate about it being released.
The Southport incidents led to guidance being developed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, recognising public concerns, to ensure that police processes are fit for purpose in an age of rapid information spread. But I do not think that this response should just be about combating misinformation—that should not be the main driver. In order for us to have accurate information, the main driver should be that the public have a right to know and understand offender and victim profiles accurately. The police, very specifically, need to understand the data to aid in the prevention and detection of crimes. It is arguable whether decisions to release information should be left up to police forces—that is not what we are concerned with here—but data collection certainly needs to be mandated, and a failure to act on this can lead to tensions.
I want to counter one thing. In some of this debate, campaigners have tried to suggest that such data collection may overly encourage focusing on racial backgrounds, fuelling right-wing conspiracy theories or pandering to racism. I do not think that is fair. Not a week goes by without the public asking questions about incidents because they are concerned for the safety of their communities. Sometimes that involves ethnicity. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made it clear that this is much broader than the issues that I have raised. This is also about the ethnicity of victims and ensuring that people from different ethnic backgrounds are not discriminated against or unfairly treated by the police. We have to be much more open and not shy away from or be frightened by this kind of data—it is essential for good policing and for reassuring the public that we are not trying to hide behind not revealing or not collecting ethnicity data for political or ideological ends, as we did with the grooming gangs.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, this amendment focuses on the recording of ethnicity in police data—not the sensitive, balanced issue of when to publish. I rather agree with what I understood her remarks to be about that: it is probably best left in operational police hands, because there are sensitivities about it. The recording of ethnicity has been a controversial subject in different jurisdictions over the years. Parts of continental Europe—Germany, for example, for obvious historical reasons—take a very different view to recording ethnic data. But I think there is value in having some recording of ethnicity in police data, not least as a means of attempting to grapple with race discrimination, for example, in stop and search.
My question is about subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 438C. Again, it is this issue of police observation rather than self-identification. The amendment focuses on the 18 categories in the census. We are all familiar with that census and often fill out questionnaires that look at those 18 subcategories. That is one thing when you are self-identifying—it is very easy for me, for example, to use the census categories, because I know my story and I know my history. But I challenge even noble Lords and noble friends in this Committee, without the benefit of Wikipedia or smartphones, or stuff written about me and my history, to determine which of those 18 categories I would best fit into.
I worry about how this would work if an officer must record the police-observed ethnicity of the individual using the 18-category classification employed in the most recent census for England and Wales, including determining whether somebody is British Asian, British Pakistani, mixed race, et cetera—
Baroness Cash (Con)
As we are in Committee, I welcome the noble Baroness’s comments on this. The 18-category classification is the gold standard of identification. In practice, a police officer may have a conversation with a suspect. Reality needs to be injected with a bit of common sense. If an individual does not know how to self-identify, a conversation helping them to locate their particular geography or identity may be facilitated with the common sense of the officer concerned. If there is an alternative, I welcome it, because I hear that the noble Baroness is in agreement on the principle and the general direction. What therefore would be a good system?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. At the police level—at the level of arrest—it has to be some version of self-identification. The police need to ask—and, if necessary, have the conversation—but it cannot be that the police observe, decide and adjudicate. That is not viable. The noble Baroness may disagree with me, but if this is going to happen in relation to race and ethnicity it will probably have to be self-identification. As I say, anything else at the level of arrest or charge is not practical.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest that my son is a senior lecturer at Swansea University, specialising in online radicalisation. He advises a number of Governments and parliaments, including our own, and other public bodies, including on Prevent.
In the previous group, we noted that the police are in the middle of changing the databases that they use for recording data and moving to the new law enforcement data service. The details are due to be published very shortly, we hope, in March this year. It is important that proper data is collected on ethnicity. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, quoting the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, because those points are extremely important.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cash for tabling this important amendment, allowing for a debate on this matter. The link between ethnicity and crime has, for far too long, been a taboo subject, but the fact is that it always has been and remains to be a significant factor in explaining certain trends.
When ethnicity is ignored and underreported, observers are reduced to relying on conjecture based upon unverified connections. It does an injustice to the victims of crimes that go either unresolved or underreported because their causal factors are refused to be acknowledged. When the facts are obscured, it opens the door for accusations from both sides in bad faith. People are derided as racist, and uninvolved communities are implicated. The result, again, is that the focus is directed away from the victims.
Grooming gangs have been the case study most often referenced when discussing this topic, and I apologise for repeating the same argument, but we do so because they offer the best example of the consequences of ignoring this link. For decades, tens of thousands of white working-class girls were systematically groomed, trafficked and raped by gangs of predominantly Pakistani men. This is a fact that has only recently been accepted by mainstream politicians and media, despite years of campaigning and research conducted outside of Westminster.
We should not have arrived at this point where, after more than 30 years, Westminster is only just waking up to the scale of the tragedy. We should not have had to wait for the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which was commissioned only after the Government faced significant pressure, both in Parliament and online, for politicians to act on an overtly racialised crime. I understand that the failings surrounding the inability to bring these gangs to justice have been many, but a consistent factor is authorities overlooking the crimes for fear of being racist. In turn, the police have done nothing to allay their fears by providing accurate ethnicity figures.
The words of Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rochdale, a grooming hotspot, aptly demonstrate this. By his own words in 2014, he avoided the industrial-scale rape of working-class girls in his constituency out of fear of “rocking the multicultural boat” and offending his own sensibilities as a
“true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie”.
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing. Good men, in the narrow sense that they were not the ones committing evil crimes, were permitted to adopt Denis MacShane’s acquiescent attitude for decades, because there was no official empirical pushback for campaigners to draw from. If ethnicity data had been collected and released, the fact that these crimes were disproportionately committed by the Pakistani community —as we know from the fragmented picture that we now possess—would have been transformed from a racist trope derided as an inconvenience into a proven fact to be used by police forces for action.
We must learn from our failings. It is not enough simply to commission a review into grooming gangs and hope that acknowledging past crimes will put a stop to future crimes being committed. Crimes are still happening, and they are still happening along ethnic lines. Mandating the recording of ethnicity is a necessity for any Government claiming to want to reduce violence against women and girls.
Past the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and past grooming gangs, there is a great practical reason to introduce a requirement to record ethnicity. Crime trends differ from community to community, and identifying exactly what these are will help the police direct resources more effectively. This data—and I hope that many noble Lords opposite will support me here—would even reduce officers’ unconscious biases, as decisions would be based upon empirical evidence and not assumptions drawn from shaky data.
The administrative burden that would come with this change would be negligible. It is an extra tick in the box in an arrest report. The benefits, as explained, are numerous. If we are serious about organising a victim-orientated system that is empirically based, this amendment is absolutely necessary. I hope that the Minister will agree, and I very much look forward to hearing from him.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her amendment, which seeks to mandate the collection of ethnicity data in respect of the perpetrators of crime. I also thank all those who contributed to this debate: my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and, for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
I will not repeat the point that I made in the last group—admittedly, this is a bit further away than I thought we were going to be—but I stress that the content of the annual data requirement on police is reviewed annually. We have also announced plans in the police White Paper, which we have already discussed in a previous group, to bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, on mandating the collection of suspect ethnicity data.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate on this amendment around the recent National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to be absolutely clear that these abhorrent crimes must be pursued wherever they are found, without cultural or political sensitivities getting in the way.
I will just pause to correct the record. While I am not at all defending his comments, I believe that I am right in saying that Denis MacShane used to be MP for Rotherham rather than Rochdale—I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said—which is obviously where one of the gangs that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, looked into operated. I just want to put that out there. However, as I said, that does not undermine the abhorrence of these crimes; they must be pursued, irrespective of any cultural or political sensitivities getting in the way.
The previous Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables to make it clear that we expect that ethnicity data will be collected from all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases. As previously set out by the Home Secretary, we will be legislating to mandate the collection of ethnicity data in such cases. To be very clear, I quote directly from the police White Paper, which was published yesterday:
“we will work with policing to create a framework for mandating clear national data standards in a timely way, to improve how data is collected, recorded and used across England and Wales, and make sure these standards are applied across all forces and the systems they use. This will further support existing legal and ethical frameworks, ensuring data is managed responsibly and proportionately, and maintaining public confidence”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, referred to the importance of self-defined ethnicity, and this is how the ONS recommends that ethnicity be recorded in line with the census, which does ultimately provide the benchmark versus which all public service data should be collected. In light of this and our commitment to bring forward legislation in the context of our wider reforms to policing, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, the mandatory recording of ethnicity data was a recommendation of the Macpherson inquiry—it was that long ago—and it just has not happened; it has not been put on a statutory footing. So, due to the variability in collection of data up and down the country we have already heard about today and the many other sociological, criminological difficulties that we now have with assessing the data trends, I wanted to bring forward this amendment and invite the Government to use this moment, with the Crime and Policing Bill going through, to set this on a statutory footing. I do not feel particularly attached to what categories we use, provided they are not the old five high-level groups, which are very cursory and do not provide the granularity of detail needed.
I am grateful to those who have spoken in support, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Chakrabarti. I am grateful also for the winding speeches. But I would really welcome further conversation, because given the Government’s direction of travel and the comments of the noble Baronesses, I feel there is common ground.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referenced ICE. We must not let that happen in our country. People often say we are just a bit behind the curve of the US, and that is not what we want to happen. But we have an opportunity to take steps that prevent the lack of transparency and dictatorial authoritarian behaviours that we have seen recently in the US. In my view, this is an opportunity and I believe the Government are sincere about driving towards this. Putting it on a statutory footing would emphasise that and give the public the reassurance that they seek. On that note, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Exception of the police from the public sector equality dutyIn Schedule 18 (public sector equality duty: exceptions) of the Equality Act 2010, after paragraph 3 insert—“The police
3A (1) Section 149 does not apply to any police force when exercising policing or law enforcement functions.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, “police force” includes—(a) a police force maintained by a local policing body,(b) the British Transport Police,(c) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, and(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt the police from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, so as to ensure they are solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 438D, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, seeks to exempt the police from the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 when they are exercising core policing and law enforcement functions. The public sector equality duty requires public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to
“have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation … advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it … foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”.
The purpose of the amendment is simple, and it comes from what should be a fundamental truism: the police should focus unambiguously on preventing crime, protecting the public and upholding the law.
Police forces already operate within one of the most extensive frameworks of legal accountability in public life. Their powers are constrained by statutes such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, regulations, ethics codes, common law and detailed operational safeguards. Despite this, operational decisions of police officers are being second-guessed not through the lens of legality or effectiveness but through compliance with equality impact assessments, diversity metrics and institutional diversity, equality, and inclusion priorities that were never designed for split-second operational judgments.
There is a practical application here. The police are often hampered in their ability to stop and search people because of their duties under the Equality Act. For example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code A, which governs the operation of police powers to stop and search, states that
“when police officers are carrying out their functions, they also have a duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it, and to take steps to foster good relations between those persons”.
I think it would be quite widely accepted by the public that it is not the police’s role to advance equality of opportunity. They are not activists.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 438D would
“exempt the police from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, so as to ensure they are solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions”.
When I read that I wished that we could apply this exemption across the board. I wish that more public bodies would commit themselves to effectively carrying out their functions and not get distracted by the public sector equality duty. The police, I am afraid, have become far too embroiled in politicised equality initiatives—the EDI-ing of the police, as it has become known.
Briefly, I want to raise why this amendment is worth thinking about and why it is quite important. There is currently legal action being taken against the UK Civil Service over aspects of EDI practices, and specifically noted is official participation in Pride events. The argument is that taxpayer-funded Civil Service involvement in, for example, LGBTQ+ Pride marches, including civil servants marching in branded Civil Service Pride t-shirts, using rainbow lanyards at work and so on, is in breach of provisions in the Civil Service Code about being objective and impartial. This relates to the police as this recent legal action follows a successful legal challenge against Northumbria Police in 2025, where the High Court ruled that uniformed police officers marching in Pride marches breached police impartiality.
For the public, the idea of a politicised police force fuels the argument that the police may be unfair or discriminatory in who they target for, for example, non-crime hate incidents. Though we have seen the back of those, they were the blight of many a person’s life and destroyed many citizens’ lives. We need reassurance that the public sector equality duty has not been used to distract the police or to politicise policing. All the evidence would imply that it has been, and that is something that the Government should be concerned about.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench. When Section 149 of the Equality Act came into effect, it was seen largely as benign. It very reasonably imposed an obligation on public sector organisations to treat people with fairness and equality and to ensure that there was equality of opportunity within the organisation and in the interface that those bodies had with the wider public, whether it was local government, the NHS or other bodies. However, it has unfortunately been the subject of Parkinson’s law, where the work expands to fill the category. Therefore, instead of focus on the managerial targets, action plans and strategy documents which would deliver demonstrable improvement in policing performance across a wide number of areas and criminal activity, there has often, regrettably, been an overfocus on the public sector equality duty.
As someone with a background as a human resources manager and practitioner, I believe that every decent leadership in every organisation should have a set of policies which deliver fairness and equality within the organisation. It should not be incumbent upon the Government to compel organisations to do something that they should already be doing. Many leading organisations in the public and private sector do so anyway because treating people with fairness and decency and giving them opportunity delivers better performance.
I apologise to the Committee for mentioning again my experience on the British Transport Police Authority. At the end of October 2023, I was invited to attend a workshop on diversity, equality and inclusion. That cost the taxpayer £29,000 for, essentially, two days of a workshop, some handouts and some supplementary material which contained contested theories around critical race theory, white privilege and microaggressions. I declined to attend the first day; the second day was much more productive because it was focused on the senior management objectives of the British Transport Police. This expansion of the public sector equality duty has been inimical to the main objectives of policing, which are to tackle crime and protect the safety and security of our citizens—on the railways, in the case of the BTP, and in the wider country.
There is a special case to be made that policing is different because it has the responsibility, as a corporate entity within the Peel principles, to police by consent and to treat people equally irrespective of their age, race, religion or ethnicity. There is an issue of undermining the trust and faith people have in the police if we concentrate too much on a duty which is quite divisive, contentious and controversial.
For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment and look forward to the Minister’s answer. I hope that he will at least engage with the argument. He is shaking his head—I do not know why, because we have not yet concluded the debate. He should know better than to dismiss any noble Lord before the conclusion of a debate. For the reasons I have enunciated, I hope that the Minister will at least engage with the debate in a thoughtful way, which is what we normally expect from him.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the public sector equality duty exists so that our public services in the UK, which are funded by all of us, obey the laws on equalities. It is there because that is not what used to happen—and sometimes it still does not happen. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that all he had to do was watch the recent television programme about the goings-on—the racism and misogyny—in one of our local police stations to know that we need these things on our statute book. As a veteran of the Equality Act 2010, I am very proud that we have them there. I hope my noble friend the Minister will give his usual defence of, “It’s Labour that always triumphs and always puts forward equalities, because that is actually important for our society”.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for outlining the core, essential use of the public sector equality duty. I note that the Government’s website says:
“The Public Sector Equality Duty … requires public authorities to have due regard … when exercising their functions, like making decisions … It is intended to help decision-makers, including Government ministers, to comply with the duty”.
It does not talk about Pride marches or the detail of training.
Section 149 of the Equality Act says:
“A public authority must … eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act”.
I do not think the police could argue with anything there. It must also
“advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”.
That speaks to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about some of the very poor, racist behaviour we have seen from a few individuals. It must also
“foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it … A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1)”.
I have quoted that very short section because the descriptions by some previous speakers in this short debate have made it sound like something completely different. I would be very worried if the police no longer had to follow the public sector equality duty as set out in the Equality Act. We can all argue about whether we do or do not like going on training days, or about a certain amount of money being well spent or not, but we really want to see discrimination eliminated, and that is particularly important in the police.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, said on the last group that we all need common sense and practicality. The PSED is the tool that does that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for outlining the detail. He is right that the police should follow the law; the point is that the PSED and the impact assessments also fit within that. Getting rid of the PSED would mean that unlawful discrimination might well be missed, and that would be dreadful. He also said that it is not down to the police to deliver equality. I think the Equality Act differs on that and, given the work the police do, we would be pretty horrified if they suddenly said they did not have to deliver equality.
One of the ways that racism can be eliminated from the police is by ensuring compliance with the PSED. It is not the PSED itself at fault, but what is going on inside police authorities. That is why, for the third group today, we are talking about the importance of the White Paper on policing that has just been published, which will change the culture and ensure that that stops. We on these Benches believe that the PSED is a vital tool for the police to deliver that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, cannot both be right. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is making the case that the public sector equality duty is a tool to tackle racism. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made clear, the appalling, racist events at Charing Cross took place a year ago, 14 years after the PSED came into being. Surely it has not worked and a cultural change has to happen from within the organisation, as well as complementary legislation being imposed. On this occasion, it does not seem to have worked in that part of the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that. That is exactly why I mentioned the Metropolitan Police’s London Race Action Plan earlier on—because it has not worked. But that action plan is underpinned by the PSED and the responsibilities without the police. Get rid of that and it might never happen.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Does the noble Baroness acknowledge the problems of mission creep? The original aims may well have been worthy but, on training days, for example, my concern is that the content of those training days can breach impartiality rules. In fact—I will not go through it now—there have been well-documented instances of, for example, the fight against racism being turned into the campaign for Black Lives Matter, which are two very different things. Is there any concern at all about any politicisation or dangers?
One of the things we discussed in the Employments Rights Bill was that, attendant to this particular duty, there has been a huge increase in HR. It is the fastest-growing industry in the UK, sadly. Largely, that has been to try to interpret this equality duty, and it has led to a wide range of activities that may never have been envisaged by the Equality Act originally.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for mentioning those things. I am not quite sure what the questions are, but I can say quite clearly that I do not see a direct line between the public sector equality duty and Black Lives Matter. What I have seen with Black Lives Matter is black people being treated very poorly and some being killed because it was not working properly. The fact that it was not working properly was not because it existed; it was not working properly because the police were not avoiding and fighting discrimination.
On the point about the increase in HR, those of us who are perhaps behind on our fire safety assessments might be concerned about that. Each organisation must assess what it needs to do for all its members of staff. I keep saying to the Minister, “Please don’t just train specialist staff in things like violence against women and girls; it has to be throughout”. Why does it have to be throughout? Because of the equality issues and all the points that were raised by noble Lords who have spoken and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, earlier on, about women being much more likely to be victims of serious crime. That is why we need it: because it is absolutely underpinning everything the police do.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to support the public sector equality duty in legislation and to say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that there are times when you know before anybody has even spoken that you are not going to agree with the premise of the argument. This is one of those occasions. I am not going to agree with the premise of the argument, but I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said. I will only in part repeat part what she said by referring to what Section 149, the public sector equality duty, is.
It says:
“A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination”—
or should the police not be looking at making sure that they eliminate discrimination in their dealings? On harassment, should the police not be ensuring that they are not involved in harassment in their dealings? On victimisation, should the police not be involved in ensuring that they do not victimise in their dealings? It goes on to refer to
“any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act”.
It says in this Section, which the noble Lord wishes to remove from legislation, that the police or any public authority should
“foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”.
Section 149(5) says:
“Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to … tackle prejudice, and … promote understanding”.
Does the noble Lord think that the police should not have a role in tackling prejudice and promoting understanding? That is what he is saying by seeking to remove this piece of legislation. The section goes on to say:
“The relevant protected characteristics are—age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation”.
Does the noble Lord believe—he obviously does, since he has tabled the amendment—that those protected characteristics should not be ones that the police seek to take into account when dealing with these matters?
The noble Lord has put a perfectly fair argument, but it does not take my listening to it in detail to know, as I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is not on my core values list or my core approach to how we deal with policing, and it is not how the public sector equality duty is designed. It is designed to embed day-to-day work in all our public authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, that leads to better outcomes for individuals and for communities. For policing, the duty is vital to maintain public trust and legitimacy. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterson and Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Peelite principles mean that the police police with the consent of the community. If they did not take into account the duty not to discriminate, victimise or harass then I am sorry, but that is not a police service that would secure the support of the community in its policing.
Compliance with this duty is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a practical tool, but one with a moral under- pinning, for better decision-making and accountability. Removing the duty would risk undermining confidence in policing, particularly among those communities that are in the protected characteristic list in Section 149 of the Equality Act.
There are times when we can have a debate, have an argument and, potentially, listen to areas where we will have some movement from either the Opposition or the Government. This is not one of those times. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment now but, if he brings it back on Report, I will take great pleasure in asking every Member of this House to vote it down.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will allow the Minister to dismount from his high horse on this. The fact of the matter, as he knows very well, is that between the election of the Labour Government in 1997 and 2010, when the Equality Act came in, there was still a concern, based on a moral underpinning by the then Labour Government, to improve equality in the workplace and elsewhere. My party brought forward, for instance, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which tackled discrimination. The Minister’s party, very rightly, brought forward the Race Relations Act 1976. It is not a moral imperative solely for the Labour Party and this particular Government. There is, however, an argument to be made about bureaucracy and whether the focus is too much on EDI, which prevents senior management and officers at the operational level concentrating on keeping people safe and tackling crime. That is the point that we are making, not that we on this side do not care about people being treated fairly and equally in the workplace and elsewhere.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
From my high position on my horse, I say to the noble Lord that we will take a different view on that. From the position of a very high horse, I think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would be damaging to community relations, to community cohesion, and to the police’s ability to police effectively. It would give carte blanche to the type of events that have happened in certain police stations in London in the last few weeks. It would also, dare I say it, remove the floor from the policing principle that we do not tolerate those things.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that certain things have not happened; he mentioned, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that some standards have not been raised in the time of the Equality Act. I remind him that there will be somebody speeding today, and somebody stealing from a shop today. There might even be a murder today. It does not mean that people would not break the law because we did not have that legislation.
The key point is that, with the Equality Act, we are trying to set a public duty that public authorities act with fairness irrespective of the protected characteristics listed in that Act. I think the police would want to—never mind should—be held to that level of account. That is why I have come to the judgment that I cannot support the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. That is a fair political disagreement between us. I have not done that in a way that says anything bad about the noble Lord’s motives. It is simply that, for me, there is a difference. There is blue/red water between us on this. I am happy to say that I hope he withdraws the amendment today; however, if he does not, we are willing to make those arguments on Report. I hope that, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and others, my noble friends and I would stand up for what we think is right about the Equality Act 2010.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Would the noble Lord comment on the High Court judgment that said that police impartiality was, in fact, compromised in the example I gave relating to Northumbria Police? That situation directly speaks to this. Will he also reflect or comment on whether he feels that fairness and anti-discrimination has been guaranteed to all by the public sector equality duty when we consider the events and protests that happened around the Sarah Everard case and the, frankly, inexplicable one-sided policing, in many instances, at demonstrations around Palestine, at the expense of Jewish people and Jewish citizens of this country? The argument that the public sector equality duty is a bureaucratic exercise that box-ticks your way to suggesting that everything is fine in the world, whereas some of us are rather more concerned that the status quo is not adequate or good enough in the fight against racism, for women’s rights or, indeed, for equality.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness looks at aspects of the Bill before us today and earlier in Committee, and at what we said in the policing White Paper yesterday, she will know that the Government do not accept that standards do not need to be raised. We want raised standards, better vetting of police officers, better performance and speedy dismissal if police officers have done wrong. We want to improve those standards. However, the Equality Act is about basic principles underpinning how public services interact with people in our community. In the policing sense, I argue, as I did a moment ago, that those Equality Act provisions underpin what the police want to do, which is to police with the consent of the community. I cannot agree with her; that is an honest disagreement between us. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; it has been short but stimulating. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their support.
When considering this matter, there is a question that I would like all noble Lords to keep in mind: what do we want the police to prioritise? Surely the answer is public safety, crime prevention, and the fair and firm enforcement of the law. As I have said, and as the legal framework makes clear, policing is already tightly regulated. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, codes of practice, judicial review, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the courts all ensure that police powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately. None of those protections would be removed by this amendment. The entire purpose of the amendment is to remove a layer of bureaucratic obligation that is ill suited to operational policing and increasingly counterproductive. It would allow officers to make decisions based on intelligence, behaviour and risk, rather than the fear of breaching abstract equality issues—but perhaps I am guilty of looking at this from an operational perspective.
If we want the police to be active on our streets rather than passive observers and to intervene early rather than apologise later, and if we want public confidence rebuilt through effectiveness rather than process then we must give them the clarity and confidence to do their job. We must recognise that effective policing is itself a public good and that the most equal outcome of all is a society in which the law is enforced without fear or favour. With that, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe
“Report: non-violent extremismWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, each police force in England and Wales must publish a report setting out any strategies they have to reduce crime associated with non-violent extremism.”
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 438E, I will speak also to Amendments 438EA—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been kind enough to support—and 438F, 454A and 454B about non-violent extremism.
Right at the start, the term “non-violent extremism” requires a bit of definition. Noble Lords may ask whether the social practices of, say, the Christian Exclusive Brethren are extreme? Could the same be said of a Hasidic Jewish sect, an anarchist commune or a Quietist Salafi group in Islam? My view is that, while these groups and others can be problematic for cohesion and integration, they are not so in relation to the extremism that my amendments seek to address, for none of them is intrinsically connected to harassment, public order offences, acts of terrorism and other such breaches of the rule of law.
There are many extremist movements and ideologies that are; the three most prominent are the far left, the far right and, for want of a better term, the Islamists. All three aim to
“negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others … undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or … intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve”
these aims. I quote from the last Government’s definition of extremism. I am told that it is also this Government’s and would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this is so when he replies to the debate.
Of these three forms of extremism—far-left, far-right and Islamist—the last has preoccupied public policy most since the London Tube bombings of 7 July 2005. Some 71% of terrorist incidents in Britain since that date have been executed by Islamists and 75% of the case load of Contest—the Government’s counterterror strategy—is concerned with Islamist threats. Only last October came the first murder since medieval times of Jews in England simply for being Jews, in the terror attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester.
The question that has haunted public policy since 7/7, including crime and policing policy, is whether it should seek to address acts of lawbreaking alone or also the ideologies that help to drive them. To use the classic figure of speech, should policy seek simply to shoot the crocodiles or also to drain the swamp? The thrust of policy under Governments of all three main parties—as evidenced by Contest, which a Labour Government created; by the Munich speech of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, during the coalition years; or by Sir William Shawcross’s Prevent review three years ago—has been to seek to drain the swamp, but progress has been fitful. There has never been an overarching policy that seeks to counter Islamist and other extremism in our institutions and civil society—such as in charities and out-of-school settings, through to the NHS, universities and schools.
There is also the matter of sermons and talks in mosques—this is extremely topical, I am afraid—that incite hatred and violence. The X account habibi regularly draws attention to these, and I will send the Minister a file drawn on it after this debate. But he will already have available to him details of how many preachers in mosques have been prosecuted for such offences since, say, 7 October 2023. I would be grateful if he would share these with the Committee when he replies or, if he does not have the figures available, write to me.
My amendments could not possibly cover all this ground, nor do they fall into the trap of assuming that all extremism is terror related; nor that all extremism, whether terror-related or not, is Islamist; nor that Islam, an ancient and venerable faith, is to be conflated with Islamism, a modern and politicised ideology. Indeed, only one of my five amendments is religion-specific and it is not Islam-specific.
However, my amendments do seek to cover the ground I have been describing, and I am grateful for the emerging work of two all-party groups. The first is the All-Party Group for Defending Democracy, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The second is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Counter Extremism, chaired by Damien Egan, MP for Bristol North East, whose visit to a local school was recently cancelled. He is the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. It later emerged that the diversity and inclusion leader of the academy trust, of which the school is a part, had supported the Hamas terrorists of 7 October as “heroes”.
The all-party group has produced a report, Time to Act, which points out, first, that the last Government, in effect, scrapped their own counterextremism strategy in 2021. Secondly, this Government’s post general election “rapid analytical sprint” review of extremism has never, to the best of my knowledge, been published, although the think tank Policy Exchange obtained a draft. Thirdly, it is unclear whether the Commission for Countering Extremism, set up by the last Government, will continue. The commissioner, Robin Simcox, has not been replaced. The Minister, asked by me recently whether he would be, has now very kindly and promptly replied to say:
“We are reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”—
which, if I may say so, does not cast a great deal more light on the matter.
I turn to the amendments themselves. My Amendment 454A would require the publication of the rapid analytical sprint. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he please tell the House when the sprint will be published?
My Amendment 454B would require the appointment of a Commissioner for Countering Extremism to replace Mr Simcox. Again, if the Minister will not accept the amendment, can he tell the House what his plans are for the commission, or, if he cannot do that yet, when he will?
My Amendment 438E would require each police force to publish its strategy for reducing non-violent extremism. Again, if the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he tell the Committee what plans the Government have for police forces in this regard and on what timetable?
Finally, my Amendment 438EA comes in the wake of the horrifying developments in Birmingham referred to earlier today by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in which the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjured up evidence that does not exist to justify its decision, and then, in the words of Nick Timothy MP, “lied and lied again” about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques that the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews.
I expect police forces to liaise with mosques and with other religious institutions. It is important to point out that groups and organisations other than mosques were involved in lobbying the West Midlands Police over the game in question. But the public surely has a right to know which police forces meet with which mosques and other religious institutions of other faiths, and then to draw their own conclusions. My Amendment 438EA would require them to do so.
These are probing amendments, but we cannot have a void where policy should be when the future of our liberal democracy is at stake. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has explained, this group is largely about a concentration on efforts to combat non-violent extremism, about transparency and about efforts by the Government and police forces to counteract such extremism. He also calls for the appointment of a Commissioner for Countering Extremism.
The noble Lord particularly—and, I would suggest, rightly—recognises and is concerned with the importance of developing and fostering dialogue between police forces and religious communities, as well as a much wider understanding of the real concern and fear of religious communities in the face of extremism, not amounting to terrorism, that has become so much worse in recent years and particularly since 7 October.
This group gives us the opportunity to invite the Government to bring greater clarity and focus to their efforts in this area and to make it clear what it is that they plan. When Yvette Cooper, then the Home Secretary, directed the establishment of the rapid analytical sprint on extremism, she said that it was intended
“to map and monitor extremist trends, to understand the evidence about what works to disrupt and divert people away from extremist views, and to identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence”.
It is certainly right that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was directed to those ends—considering hateful and harmful beliefs and violence not necessarily amounting to extremism. The rapid analytical sprint was intended to be directed widely and, since then, publicity has been given to the concentration also on misogyny, racism, antisemitism and general community hostilities. It was commissioned last August, so perhaps the use of the word “rapid”, if we do not know when it is going to be produced, is not completely apposite.
The group is also concerned with the concept of youth diversion orders. We will debate youth diversion orders on a later group, but they are directed by the terms of Clause 167, as it is drafted, to terrorism and terrorism-related offences. It is certainly right that Clause 167(2)(b) talks about
“the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism or other serious harm”,
but serious harm is defined in, and our attention is directed to, Clause 168, which talks about harm from
“conduct that … involves serious violence against a person … endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person engaging in the conduct, or … creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or … the threat of such conduct”.
Serious harm in that context is, effectively, the threat of violence. As I understood the speech and the amendments, as a whole, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, they are also directed to the points that Yvette Cooper mentioned when the rapid analytical sprint was established. They go much wider and concern non-violent extremism, which is what this group is about. He talked about confronting ideologies and draining the swamp.
We would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, clarifies what the Government’s target is in tackling non-violent extremism. How far is the government strategy for both government and police action aimed at producing an overarching strategy to tackle non-violent extremism as well as terrorism? We appreciate that it is perhaps more difficult in conceptual terms to develop such a strategy aimed at non-violence than it is to develop a strategy aimed at terrorism, which, while appalling, is relatively straightforward to define. The concept of non-violent extremism is altogether more difficult, and at the moment we are left in the dark about what the Government propose.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, in this interesting group of amendments in his name, draws our attention to non-violent extremism and raises hugely important issues. I am not entirely happy with that broad definition of non-violent extremism, but the noble Lord has given us plenty to mull over in his interesting, thought-provoking and hard-hitting speech.
I am worried about the kind of ideologies that we face at present; I just think that the reluctance to confront those ideologies is more likely to be a failure of moral leadership rather than law, so I am trying to work my way around that. I am also concerned about the policing of a range of views dubbed extremist. We have to be careful, because that can be used to close down legitimate speech and to demonise dissident views as being too extremist and too beyond the pale to engage with.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Why could not or should not the disturbing examples that the noble Baroness has cited already have been prosecuted under current legislation on hate law?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
That might well be true, but it indicates that there might be a problem of the police not necessarily being impartial, because they are so busy forming community relationships with mosques that they are not necessarily listening to the kind of things that are going on in mosques or whatever other institutions. I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, but this is the point I am making: Hizb ut-Tahrir are on the streets of London shouting about Muslim armies and jihad, while the Metropolitan Police, no doubt getting some theological Islamic advice from their religious advisers, put up a post saying that jihad has a number of meanings and should not be seen in just one way and talking about personal struggle and so on.
I want to finish with the example of what good community relations are and where we might be. Amid the Southport murder-related riots, that horrible period of disruption and violence on the streets, an extraordinary film was posted on TikTok of a police officer telling counter-protesters to stash the weapons in the mosque so that they would not have to arrest anyone. The liaison officer, wearing a blue police vest, was addressing a group of men gathered outside the Darul Falah mosque in Hanley, near Stoke-on-Trent, and was appearing to give the group of young men a weapons amnesty. He spoke to the crowd, saying:
“If there are any weapons or anything like that, then what I would do is discard them at the mosque”.
The reason why I am saying that is that I just think we should not be naive. That is the most important thing. When we talk about the police liaising with religious organisations, in a period of identity politics and in a period such as the one that we are living through in 2026, we should at least pause and not assume it is all going well. I therefore welcome the attempt at saying, “Let’s know who they are talking to”. That is the important reason why I support this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Minister and indeed the Home Office might be forgiven for wondering why Amendment 438EA was necessary. One might have taken it for granted that, on the whole, if any important event was happening, those likely to be involved in it in the community would be consulted. However, I fear the Home Office needs to think again. We have heard already about Birmingham, where one of the largest police forces in the country speaks exclusively to the mosques. When the Maccabi fans were considering whether they would come to Birmingham, the police did not talk to the churches but, rather more importantly, they did not talk to the synagogues. If one stops to think about it, it is quite extraordinary. All that I have read and heard in this House, as well as reading in the newspapers, leads one to suppose that those considering whether those Jewish fans should be allowed to come were looking exclusively from the Muslim point of view.
The Home Office should therefore consider carefully, perhaps with the College of Policing, whether, when it comes to significant and possibly controversial events—or very controversial, as the Maccabi one was likely to be—it should tell police forces that they must find what all the local people who might be interested think about it, and take some advice. I am horrified by what happened. I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, should have tabled the amendment, and the Government need to consider it with extreme care.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on Counter Extremism, I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in these amendments. He has already referenced the Time to Act publication, which was published late last year and deals with a number of statistics that are quite startling and deserve to go on the record today. It was found that one in five voters— 21%, actually—
“say that political violence in the UK is acceptable in some conditions, and 18% would consider participating in violent protests as the state of Britain declines”.
That is a very concerning thing to read. We know that there has been a nearly 600% rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK following 7 October 2023. We also know that anti-Muslim hate has doubled over this last decade. Those are statistics that cannot be ignored. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, outlined why she finds some difficulty with these amendments, but there is recognition in the report that extremism
“is one of the primary domestic security and societal threats facing the UK”.
When the noble Baroness was detailing some examples of extremism, the noble and right reverend Lord asked why people were not prosecuted. I would argue—and I know that the noble and right reverend Lord will recognise that I have an amendment later in the day—that the glorification of terrorism needs to be much more clearly defined in law. We will come to that later in the amendments. Defeating terrorism is not just about dealing with it from a military point of view but about dealing with the narrative around those terrorist organisations—“draining the swamp”, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would put it. We are allowing glorification to continue on the streets of our country and then not recognising that extremism will grow as a result. I hope that when we come to debate that issue, there will be a good airing of the issues around the glorification of terrorism.
The first thing we need to do in this area is to recognise that there is a problem, and then to define the problem and move on to understand it and deal with it. I very much welcome these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and indeed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but I am very doubtful that further legislation is required. There is, as previous speakers have said, a very worrying degree of antisemitic extremist speech, particularly, I am sorry to say, in the Muslim community and not just in speeches in mosques. Opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government—opposition shared by many Jews—cannot begin to justify such speech.
The sort of people who murdered Jews in Heaton Park synagogue come from a community. They have been to school in this country. They are members of mosques. The real question is how the whole community, not only the Muslim community, is going to address this problem. I know, and the Minister will no doubt confirm, that the Government do a great deal to ensure that civic values and the lessons to be learned from the Holocaust are taught in schools, but I fear that much more needs to be done and there really is a responsibility on the leaders of the Muslim community to take further steps to ensure that those lessons are understood.
It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, particularly poignant that this issue is raised on Holocaust Memorial Day, and sad that these matters need to be readdressed. It is a problem in our society; it needs to be dealt with, but, as I say, I am very doubtful that legislation is the answer.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe for his recent group of amendments. Extremism in its worst form of course becomes terrorism. This is often, if not always, the product of idle inaction or, at worst, encouragement from surrounding communities and influencers. The propounding of extremist views, even if not necessarily violent, has slowly seated itself in public discourse and is gaining influence in local communities throughout the country. It is clearly something that needs to be addressed, so I welcome the chance to hear from the Government.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, for his amendments, which have generated some interesting discussion and points. I will try to respond to those in some detail.
It is accepted across the Committee that counterextremism is a deeply challenging and complex area, and that the Government have a duty to protect their citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. The approach we are trying to take to counterterrorism is something that the Home Secretary, the Security Minister and I take extremely seriously. It is not appropriate that any citizen should be made fearful for their safety or should be excluded from public or political life on the basis of hateful prejudice. There is already legislation on the statute book to deal with these matters. Our society also rightly rejects those who preach, promote or espouse hatred, and as such everyone has both a right and a responsibility to challenge extremist narratives. I hope there is agreement on what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. The Government will continue to uphold and promote those values across the board.
I will look at the amendments in detail, starting with Amendment 438E, which, in the noble Lord’s words, seeks to require every police force to publish a report on strategies to tackle non-violent extremism within three months of this Act passing. I understand the intention behind the amendment and the need to tackle non-violent extremism. However—I think this again echoes a point the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, made—police forces already work within national frameworks and report through existing channels and imposing a statutory deadline would risk diverting resources from front-line activity and might lead to incomplete or inconsistent reporting. The measure potentially duplicates existing accountability mechanisms and could, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, add bureaucracy rather than improving security outcomes.
Amendment 438EA seeks to impose an annual reporting duty on the 43 forces to report meetings with religious leaders and faith communities. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to others who mentioned it—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox and Lady Foster, have talked around these issues—that the impact of what happened in Birmingham resulted in the chief constable of the West Midlands losing his post and it will result in an examination of the practices around that.
However, if we take the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at face value, I am not convinced that such a requirement would improve policing outcomes or community safety. Publishing who met who, when and how, could potentially deter some of the candid dialogue that is sometimes needed behind the scenes to ensure that community cohesion is taken into account. I also do not wish to expose sensitive protective security or safeguarding interactions with places of worship. There may even be some faith communities that do not wish to be seen in their community to be engaging with the police. It is possible, but I want to still encourage the police and those faith community leaders to have meetings. If that engagement is catalogued and publicised, it could undermine some of the problem-solving partnerships that I know the noble Lord wishes to foster.
Amendment 438F proposes including non-violent extremism in scope of the youth diversion order, which we will come on to in due course in Clause 167. That clause reflects the intended scope of that order, which seeks to implement a recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. That was a very specific recommendation to introduce a new diversionary civil order to better manage terrorist risk from young people. Including non-violent extremism in the scope of that potential order would go beyond the original design and intent that was suggested to the Government.
During policy development, officials have engaged with operational partners and the independent reviewer themselves. In essence, the youth diversion order is not a counterextremism tool for young people who hold divisive, extremist or hateful views but do not pose a risk. That is the key. It would not be proportionate to impose a counterterrorism risk-management tool on a young person who was simply assessed as holding extremist views. There are ways in which we can deal with that. There is the Prevent mechanism generally. There is a range of educational mechanisms that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to for ensuring that we tackle these long-term issues in a much more productive way. I say to the noble Lord that the youth diversion order would not be the specific tool for the type of activity that he seeks to discuss today with his amendment.
In addition, I say to the Committee that there is no statutory definition of or consensus on what would include extremism. This would represent a level of interference with and intrusion on the rights of young people that is not yet even available in adult cases. In practice, the amendment would increase the scope of the order and would overlap with the remit of Prevent, which is designed to deal with individuals who are moving into extremist views but have not yet reached the terrorist threshold.
The Home Office is undertaking extensive counter- extremism work in collaboration with local government departments and the Commission for Countering Extremism. On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I know from my devolved responsibilities in the department that we are discussing those issues with the devolved Administrations.
Turing to Amendment 454A, I agree that transparency is important. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has pushed for this transparency and has supported the amendment. I say this in the hope of being helpful to the Committee but, if documents such as the rapid analytical sprint on counterextremism were put into public domain, it could, for example, undermine policy development. It might impact upon the integrity of how policy is developed, because we would know that such documents were going to be put into the public domain. It would prevent disclosures, which would undermine the policymaking process, and less robust, well-considered or effective policies may well result.
However, through a range of mechanisms—this is the important point for the noble Lord and his amendment —the Home Office is accountable to Parliament for its counterterrorism policies and the rapid analytical sprint. Members here can debate, as we are now; they can table Questions, as they do; they can table Written Questions, as they do; I can appear before Select Committees, as I did at the European Affairs Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, only last week; I can be answerable for Statements; and I can be answerable in debates. Home Office Ministers can appear in private before the Intelligence and Security Committee, where a private discussion between Members of this House, Members of the Commons and Government Ministers on the conclusions can be done in a way that does not compromise security information. It is absolutely right we are held to account for that. Equally, is it absolutely right that, on some occasions, it is done behind a shielded door, where privacy can help with better policy development. Further, we have just submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into combatting new forms of extremism. My colleague Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, gave oral evidence to that committee only last week.
There are definitely ways in which we are held accountable to Parliament. However, even if we accepted Amendment 454A and published all those documents, what goes into those documents means that there is a further wall behind them, and so we would not be able to put in them the things that we wanted to.
Amendment 454B, also from the noble Lord, seeks to mandate that, within three months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must appoint a dedicated counter- extremism commissioner. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his question the other week. That aspect of policy is not my direct responsibility in the Home Office; I answer for it here, but it is not my direct responsibility, so I was not aware at that time of the status of the Commissioner for Countering Extremism. I thought my letter had helped clarify the matter, but apparently it has not.
To clarify, the previous commissioner, Robin Simcox, left in July last year. As I said in my letter to the noble Lord on 9 January:
“We are currently reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”.
That means that we are looking at a number of arm’s-length bodies, for which I have overall responsibility, to see whether we need them, whether we can rationalise them and whether we can make cost savings in them. The Commissioner for Countering Extremism is subject to that review. The Home Office has been asked by the Cabinet Office to do that as part of a Cabinet Office-led arm’s length bodies review. We are looking at the roles and remits of various bodies. I do not think that I have spent a single year of my now 30 years in either House without somebody asking why we are not reducing the number of quangos that are operational in departments. That is what the Cabinet Office is trying to do; we are looking at the arm’s-length bodies that we have. That is a general demand, and not to say that I know what the outcome of that review is going to be.
If Amendment 454B, from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, was passed, it would mean that we would have to appoint a dedicated counterextremism commissioner. We may well do that, or we may not, but these issues are under review. I welcome the work that Robin Simcox has done. I cannot accept this amendment, given that we are still working through the outcome of the review.
I have tried to answer each of the amendments in turn. I am sorry that, in answering them, I cannot accept any of them. However, I hope that I have given legitimate answers as to why we are where we are. I hope that the noble Lord can reflect on those and, in due course, withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, this has been an appropriately sombre debate given the scale and sweep of the challenges described. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as well as the two speakers from the Front Benches and the Minister for replying to the debate. As I say, it has been necessarily sombre.
The Minister, very helpfully, for a number of technical reasons, explained why he wants to reject all of the amendments that I have put forward. But the sum of what he said—in dealing with the amendments in his usual charming and emollient manner—is that he did not confirm that there is a definition of counterextremism, and so has not confirmed that the Government have maintained the last Government’s position. He has not confirmed whether or not the commissioner will or will not be appointed. As for the analytical sprint, I could not really follow the logic of his argument, which is that it is impossible for some reason to publish it because it would cause difficulties in doing so. The last person the Minister reminds me of is any of the Beatles, but I feel his policy is taking us on a bit of a magical mystery tour. We do not know where the policy on non-violent extremism is going and we do not really know when we will know.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, caught the mood of the moment, which is a certain impatience. A vacuum in government policy simply is not good enough. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that these matters are not best addressed by amendments and legislation—there was a certain element of probing in the amendments I have put forward—I do not think these matters have been entirely cleared up by the magical mystery tour that the Minister has taken us on and I reserve the right to come back to them on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Injury in service award for policeWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the merits of creating a commemorative emblem for police officers injured in the line of duty.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of creating a new award in the form of a commemorative emblem for police officers who have been injured in the line of duty.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 438EB is inspired by the 999 Injured and Forgotten campaign, led by Tom Curry, a detective forced to retire after suffering a life-changing injury on duty, weeks before reaching 22 years of service. In 2023, Tom launched a petition calling for a new medal for police injured on duty and discharged from the service, and it has since expanded to include all public servants.
Every day, emergency responders put their lives on the line to protect the public. Tragically, within policing alone, more than 16,000 officers have suffered catastrophic injuries in the course of their service and have had to give up their careers as a result. Yet there is currently no formal means of recognising their sacrifice. Like Tom, many injured officers miss out on long service and good conduct medals, which now require 20 years of sustained service. Gallantry awards elude most assault victims, who are typically ambushed from behind, depriving them of the opportunity to show valour.
The Elizabeth Emblem was created in 2024 to rightly honour public servants killed in the line of duty. On these Benches, we believe it is wrong that those whose lives have been changed irrevocably through injury are overlooked. This is a modest amendment. It simply asks the Government to consider the merits of such an award and to lay a report on it before Parliament. Although the Bill’s scope does not allow me to include all those we believe should be eligible, this would be an important step towards formal recognition of injured survivors and to honour the brave work of our emergency services. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for this amendment and the case she put forward. It is absolutely axiomatic that we must honour and recognise those brave police officers who put their safety at risk to protect the public. During my police service, I saw many acts whereby officers placed themselves in the most dangerous of situations with little recognition. If I had time, I would be keen to relate some of those instances to noble Lords; some of them, of course, had consequences. There is certainly some merit in the proposal. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Home Office might suggest on this.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that we owe our emergency service workers a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe and for always answering the call when we need help. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is incumbent on us, as a state and as a society, to wrap our arms around them, so to speak, and ensure that they are given all the support they need.
I am sure we all agree that the list of public servants who risk and suffer injuries during the course of their duties is not limited to police officers; this was reflected in the noble Baroness’s comments. Other emergency services, such as our brave firefighters, ambulance workers and other emergency service workers, also face great risk of injury on duty. Any consideration will have to include them alongside police staff—I think the whole Chamber would agree on that—though I note that the text of the amendment refers to police officers alone. I hope the noble Baroness takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.
Noble Lords will be aware that the police are already eligible for a number of medals, including for long or exemplary service, for specific celebrations such as a Coronation or jubilee, and for gallantry. Individuals who suffer injury as a result of their efforts to prevent loss of life can and have been successfully put forward for formal gallantry awards. This includes Sergeant Timothy Ansell of Greater Manchester Police, who was injured coming to the aid of a colleague and received a King’s Commendation for Bravery in October.
Although I recognise that the threshold for these awards is high, and rightly so, there are many incidents which can and should be put forward but which currently fall below the radar. The Home Office has been driving work to increase the number of gallantry nominations for the police, and I encourage any noble Lords who have cases to put forward to do so via the Cabinet Office website.
Work to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency service workers who are injured as a result of their duties and whether it is viable is ongoing. However, I point out that in this country, all medals are a gift from the Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. It would therefore be inappropriate to legislate for such a medal, potentially cutting across the powers that rightly rest with His Majesty the King. On the understanding that this is a matter that is actively under consideration, I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his support. I also pay tribute to Tom Morrison MP, who previously highlighted this campaign in the other place. Those people who put themselves on the line for us in the course of duty really ought to be honoured. I take the Minister’s point that it is not in the gift of the Government to do this and that we should not legislate, but I hope that whoever has the power will be persuaded to do something like this. It does not have to be a medal, but it needs to recognise that people who put themselves on the line need to be appropriately rewarded—I do not mean monetarily; I mean a proper reward. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kidron
“Police protocols when investigating the death of a child(1) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 27 (common law rules as to criminal investigations), insert—“Inclusion of guidance on collecting digital data when investigating the death of a child(1) Within six months the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, the code of practice under section 23 must include protocols that a person of a prescribed authority must adhere to when investigating the death of a child.(2) These protocols must include the treatment of potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry.(3) In order to treat a potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry, a person of a prescribed authority, must—(a) seize and forensically examine digital devices as soon as is reasonably possible;(b) take all reasonable steps to capture early digital evidence and account data, taking into account that online services delete user data after a short period of inactivity;(c) document a child’s activity on all known online services, including recommended content, interactions with other users, content viewed, content uploaded, and any relevant metadata.(4) Where an investigation gives evidence that a service regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 may have breached that Act, Ofcom must be notified and supplied with the evidence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would update statutory guidance issued to police to include guidance on effective evidence-collecting during an investigation into the death of a child.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their support.
It is heartbreaking to be here again. I first raised this issue over four years ago after witnessing Senior Coroner Walker’s difficulties in obtaining data from US tech firms during his investigation into the death of Molly Russell. Senior Coroner Walker, Ian Russell—Molly’s father—and the family’s lawyers fought for years to secure data that revealed the role played by Pinterest and Meta, and this evidence was central to the coroner’s finding that both services,
“contributed to her death in a more than minimal way”.
Data is crucial. The original amendments were also recommended in the pre-legislative Joint Committee report on the draft Online Safety Bill. We debated them at length during the Bill’s proceedings. We got agreement to put them into the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which fell when the election was called. We tried to push them through in the wash-up and finally, after years of campaigning by bereaved families, they were included in the Data (Use and Access) Act last year.
I say all this because I want the Minister, when she replies, to weigh up her words carefully, knowing that the bereaved families, who have worked so hard to pass these provisions for so many years—some of whom are in the Gallery today—are still waiting. Yesterday, I met several bereaved families, including Mia Janin’s father, Mariano, who held a photograph of his daughter as he described a recent meeting with the Secretary of State, Liz Kendall. He said, “I thought it was a good meeting until I realised it was the same meeting we had with Peter Kyle a year ago—except this year we needed a bigger room because there are more bereaved parents, more dead children”.
I also heard yesterday of a newly bereaved parent who tried to get the police to access her daughter’s data, only to be told by Gloucestershire Constabulary’s occupational health department to talk to Ellen Roome: “She knows more about the law than the entire Gloucestershire police force”. I spoke to Ellen, who is with us in the Gallery, and she told me that the police downloaded her son Jools’s data in 2022 but are only now beginning to examine it.
We have a law, but it is not working, and I want to set out three reasons why. First, although coroners can ask Ofcom to issue a data preservation notice that requires online services to retain data in advance of issuing a Schedule 5 notice, they are not routinely doing so. Although Section 101 enables Ofcom to use its information-gathering powers when it receives a Schedule 5 notice from a coroner, it is not routinely doing that either.
I have eight separate letters from the Government saying who has been written to and outlining what guidance has been sent to whom, but still bereaved parents come to my door. For some, the loss of their child is still raw and they are blindly trying to work out the system; others are heartbroken that the opportunity to preserve data is long gone because they found out about the law too late. Sometimes, the coroner does not know that the measure exists or does not understand that data disappears and wants to wait for the police investigation before even considering such a request. All these different reasons undermine the fundamental purpose of the law.
To be absolutely clear, I have no criticism of the coroners. They are not experts in digital systems and cannot reasonably be expected to know that even a brief engagement, such as hovering over a link or pausing on a piece of content, can influence how an algorithm responds. Nor are they expected to know that platforms routinely infer and group children into behavioural cohorts relating, for example, to low mood, late-night use, social isolation or identity exploration. Nor are they supposed to know that seemingly fleeting online interactions can leave persistent data traces. The measure was specifically designed for Ofcom to take that burden from the coroners, but that has not happened.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is with a mixture of sadness and pleasure that I rise to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and have added my name to the amendments in this group. Much of the Bill impacts in small ways on the lives of many citizens in this country. These amendments, which I hope very much the Government will accept, would have a huge impact on the lives of a small group of families whose children have died and who are seeking to understand what led to their deaths. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, it is a club that no members wish to be part of.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I pay particular tribute to Ellen Roome, mother of Jools, who died inexplicably aged 14. Ellen Roome has found herself at the front of a national call for change in relation to children’s access to social media in general and to these specific issues, which have impacted her family and other families so cruelly. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, who cannot be with us today, told me how moved she was when we met Ellen recently. I can only agree.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, set out, these amendments would achieve three things. First, they would explicitly bring the attention of the investigating officer to the digital and online aspects of a child’s life. The code of practice for officers feels like it was written in another age; maybe 2020, which I think was the year of latest version, was another age. Again, as we have heard, we owe thanks to Stuart and Amanda Stephens, who have highlighted this gap following the murder of their son Olly.
There is not a single reference in the code to digital evidence, just one reference to the fact that physical evidence can be captured digitally. Given how much of a child’s life is now lived online, it is vital that this is investigated properly and at the earliest opportunity. Our Amendment 438ED would bring this early investigative focus and would give the police the opportunity to alert Ofcom if they believe that a platform is not complying with the Online Safety Act.
The second thing that these amendments would achieve is that vital digital evidence would be systematically requested by coroners in the case of the death of a child aged between five and 17. The draft template would ensure that all relevant information is provided in a completely consistent manner, as well as giving the option to include any other relevant information for a particular case.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, currently, despite recent improvements in legislation, too much is left to the discretion of coroners, many of whom may be unaware of the new powers that they hold in relation to both coroner information notices and data preservation notices. Without this information, recently bereaved families are expected to request information themselves from a platform, through the horribly titled “deceased user duties”.
I looked at the help section of the Facebook website. Imagine being a recently bereaved family, just logging in; this is what they read:
“In rare cases, we consider requests for additional account information or content. You’ll be required to provide proof that you’re an authorised representative (e.g. family member) and a court order. Please bear in mind that sending a request or filing the required documentation doesn’t guarantee that we’ll be able to provide you with the content of the deceased person’s account. In addition, we’ll memorialise the deceased person’s account once we receive your request. If you’d like to send us a request, please contact us”.
I will leave your Lordships to judge the tone of that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support Amendments 474, 475, 438ED and 438EE, which all stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to which I am pleased and privileged to have added my name alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes and Lady Barran. I pay tribute to the relentless campaigning on behalf of bereaved families by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to her utterly moving and convincing introduction today. I also pay tribute to all those bereaved families who have fought for these provisions.
I associate myself with everything the noble Baroness said about the implementation of and the intent behind the Online Safety Act, which has not achieved what we all set out for it to do. Together, these amendments address a singular, tragic failure in our current justice system: the loss of vital digital evidence following the death of a child. There has been powerful testimony regarding what is called the suspension gap. That occurs when a coroner investigating the death of a child feels unable to issue a data preservation notice because a police investigation is technically active, yet the police might not have prioritised the securing of digital evidence. During this period of hesitation, data held by social media companies is deleted and the opportunity to understand the child’s final interactions is lost for ever.
Currently, many coroners remain unaware that they can request data preservation notices in the early stages of an investigation. We have heard heartbreaking reports from bereaved parents that coroners feel unable to act while police investigations are active. Because inquests are routinely suspended during these investigations, the data is often deleted due to account inactivity or routine system operations before the coroner can issue an information notice.
The Molly Rose Foundation and the 5Rights Foundation have been clear. Automatic preservation is essential, because data is the key to joining the dots in these tragic cases. We cannot allow another child’s digital history and the truth about their death to vanish because of bureaucratic delay. As Ofcom has recently clarified, service providers are not required to retain data they do not already hold. They simply need to notify the regulator if information is missing. During recent consultations, major providers such as Meta and Microsoft did not object to preserving data from further back, provided it was still within their systems.
Too often, police seize a physical device but fail to notify Ofcom of potential breaches of the Online Safety Act. These amendments work in tandem. Amendments 474 and 475 would freeze the evidence automatically and provide the legal mechanism to preserve data. Amendments 438ED and 438EE would ensure that the police and coroners are fully aware of their responsibilities and protocols to collect that evidence. Together, they would ensure that potential online harm is treated with the same priority as a physical weapon in every investigation into a child’s death.
These amendments are about ensuring that our coroners system is fit for a digital age. They provide the speed and technical certainty required to support bereaved families in their pursuit of justice. We cannot continue to allow a lack of process to obscure the truth about why a child has died. We cannot allow the deletion of evidence to become the enemy of justice. I urge the Minister, as have the noble Baronesses, to accept these amendments as a necessary modernisation of our investigatory framework.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, if I needed persuading—and I am not sure I did—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her supporters have certainly persuaded me that there is a serious problem here. As legislators who spend hours in this Chamber, we all know that law without enforcement is a dead letter in a sealed book, and not what anyone wants to be spending their lives on. If, as it seems, there are gaps of responsibility and agency between coroners, the police, Ofcom and, dare I say it, the great big untouchable tech imperium that monetises our data and effectively monetises our lives, those gaps need to be dealt with.
Just as I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just for her commitment but for her expertise on online harms, I will say that my noble friend the Minister is probably one of the most expert and experienced criminal lawyers in your Lordships’ House. If these precise amendments are too broad and too onerous for catching children who, for example, were too young to have a device, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to address that. Between these noble Baronesses and other noble Lords of good faith, something can be done.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and I am glad that my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Morgan of Cotes have signed them on behalf of these Benches. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and, of course, to all the bereaved parents and family members who are campaigning still to tighten and enforce the law in this important area, based on their terrible experiences.
We know that there are some gaps in the law. The noble Baroness’s amendments address, first, implementation and making sure that coroners are aware of the powers that the Online Safety Act has given them. Very sensibly, her amendments are about spreading knowledge and awareness so that, on behalf of the families of young people who have lost their lives in these terrible ways, coroners can find out the truth and hold that to account. In some ways, that is the easier problem to solve. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, the coroners are not technical experts: there is always a generational gap. The apps and the social media that are second nature to the young people using them can be mystifying to the parents, the coroners and the police who have to look into them in the most terrible circumstances. We need to make sure that everybody is aware of how the apps work and how the Online Safety Act works too.
The noble Baroness pointed out a trickier problem, which is the extraterritorial effect, particularly with relation to the law in the United States of America. She is right that the previous Government spoke to the previous US Administration about things such as the Stored Communications Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, raised in our debates on the Bill. It was a problem that we were aware of and, as the noble Baroness noted, there has been a change of government on both sides of the Atlantic.
Perhaps when the Minister responds, or perhaps later in writing, she will say a bit more about the changing dynamics and the discussions that are being had with the present US Administration. It is clearly having an effect on these cases; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned the inquest into the sad death of Leo Barber, when the Schedule 5 notice was unable to be brought into effect. I would be keen to hear from the Minister, either today or later, about the more recent discussions that His Majesty’s Government have had with the US Administration on this important aspect.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I fully support these amendments and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her fight to highlight these issues over many years and on her opening remarks. I also pay respect to the bereaved parents who have been campaigning tirelessly and look to us to achieve change.
It is common sense for coroners and law enforcement agencies to have access to the social media accounts of deceased children who are believed to have died as a result of social media activity. If it was your child or grandchild, would you not want that? This action needs to take place automatically before accounts are deleted. Accounts should be preserved, and it should be a criminal offence to delete or edit them before they are reviewed by investigators. Like so many grieving parents across the country, I strongly believe that social media companies should not be allowed to withhold or destroy often crucial evidence that could be vital to investigations and lead to criminal convictions.
After hearing on “BBC Breakfast” news this morning some of the heartbreaking stories from bereaved parents who are campaigning on this issue and urging the Government to take more robust action, I was convinced that tragic cases such as these clearly highlight the need for social media companies to be compelled to protect our children and safeguard them from harm. This is yet another plea before more harm is done because, right at this very moment, there is a child viewing harmful content that could lead to tragedy, so I hope the Government are listening—and is Ofcom listening? I want them to listen to these bereaved parents and take further action. I urge the Government to accept these much-needed amendments and act now.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I cannot match the eloquence of some of the previous speakers, but I want to add my support for this group of amendments. We have heard the policy arguments for these proposals and, as a policymaker, I think they are overwhelming, but I add my support as a parent as well as a legislator.
Those of us with children and teenagers know full well how much of a child’s life nowadays is conducted on a screen behind a password. Friendships, pressures and influences are impossible to get at without access to that digital record. I pay tribute to the bereaved parents who have campaigned with such courage and dignity; they have turned unimaginable grief into a determination to protect others, and the whole House will honour what they are doing today.
I very much hope that the Government accept these amendments and, if not, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will be true to her word and continue to bring them back on Report.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling these amendments and I thank her and many others in the Committee who have given cogent and compelling arguments for their inclusion in the Bill.
It does indeed feel like the dial is starting to shift with regard to the protection of our children from online harms. I am very pleased, for instance, that your Lordships’ House supported my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment last week in voting to ban under-16s from social media. The amendments before us today are in many ways an extension of that argument—that social media is not appropriate for children, it is causing irreparable harm and, in the most severe cases, as we have heard today, is leading to death. As the father of teenage children who, like so many other children, face a world of online temptation, pressure and influence, these issues are very personal. There is a lot to be said for creating further duties when there is the death of a child.
As has been said, the issue was in live consideration in the previous Government’s legislation, which included a clause that created a data preservation process. I am aware that the text of Amendment 474 is different, but the fundamental issue is the same: at their heart, these amendments contain the simple objective to ensure that coroners can access the social media data or the wider online activity of a deceased child where the death is suspected to be linked to that activity. In that scenario, it is plainly sensible to ensure that that data is not destroyed, so that coroners can access it for the purposes of investigations.
I have nothing further to add, given what has already been said. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that we have a great deal for which to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her work in relation to the online space and its regulation when it comes to our most vulnerable citizens. It is so obvious that all child deaths are harrowing and deeply distressing for bereaved families that to say so seems almost trite. However that may be, I start my remarks by acknowledging this to make the point that the Government have this both front and centre. Anything I say this afternoon should be seen in that context.
I pay tribute to every brave family who fought to understand the circumstances that led to the death of their own child. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for telling me that some of the families are in the Gallery; I have not had an opportunity to meet them yet, but I extend the invitation to do so now. I also understand that for most, if not all, of them, this is not just about the circumstances of their own child’s death but about trying to ensure that this does not happen to other families.
We know that the data preservation provisions in Section 101 of the Online Safety Act continue to be a focus, both for bereaved families and parliamentarians who do not think that the process is quick enough to stop services deleting relevant data as part of their normal business practices. We agree that it is a proper and urgent objective to make sure that Ofcom has the powers to require, retain and provide information.
Section 101 was originally introduced following the campaign and amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. In order to support both coroners and services, in September, both the Chief Coroner and Ofcom published guidance on this new provision. Ofcom consulted on the draft guidance in parallel and published its finalised guidance in December 2025. The Chief Coroner’s guidance encourages coroners to consider requesting a data preservation notice early in the investigation if the relevance of social media or another in-scope service cannot be ruled out. This should safeguard against automatic deletion of the data by service providers due to routine processes.
The Government brought forward the commencement of data preservation notices, which came into force on 30 September 2025. Since then, Ofcom has issued at least 12 data preservation notices. On 15 December 2025, the guidance for Ofcom was updated in relation to information-gathering powers, including new guidance on data preservation notices themselves. The Government are therefore working closely with Ofcom and the Office of the Chief Coroner to understand how effectively these are working in practice, but we have heard the concerns about the speed and efficiency of this process.
Against this background, I begin with Amendments 438ED and 438EE. The police themselves accept that there should be better guidance for the application of powers to preserve and access digital evidence in investigations of child deaths in order to ensure consistency across forces. Forgive me, I have a bad cough.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are already working with the police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to create guidance to raise awareness of and promote the consistent use of powers available to the police to preserve and access data following the suspicious death of a child. Officials in the Home Office have been supporting this work where appropriate. That said, we can see why the noble Baroness’s idea of updating statutory guidance is attractive.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I can start again; I am very grateful to my noble friend for taking over. I say now that I would welcome a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as she and I discussed when we met briefly the other day. The Government do have concerns that being too prescriptive in legislation may create more problems than it solves because the legislation would need to be amended every time there were changes in technology or in operational practices. Your Lordships will be well aware, given our many late nights spent scrutinising primary legislation, of which tonight may be another, how clunky, cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to keep amending primary legislation.
For this reason, it is the Government’s view that our shared objective can be achieved using non-statutory guidance. Police forces are well used to applying and following guidance in a range of areas, from missing people to information sharing. Having said that, I make the point that I would welcome a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to see whether we can find a way through this by working together to do so.
I turn to Amendments 474 and 475. Again, this is an issue that the Government take very seriously. I reassure your Lordships that we are carefully considering the issues that these amendments raise and are grateful for the continued engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the bereaved families. Taken together, these amendments would require coroners to notify Ofcom within five days of a child’s death, triggering a standard form to request data preservation.
Once again, we can see the appeal of such a requirement. The problem is that it would apply to all cases of deaths in the over-fives, regardless of whether social media may be relevant to their death. So, for example, where a child died as a result of a road traffic collision or of cancer, it is unlikely in most cases that social media retention would be of use to the police or the coroner. Therefore, while the Government are sympathetic to the aims of these amendments, it is our view that we need carefully to consider any possible unintended consequences.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
On that point, does the Minister have the number of children over five who die in other ways, just so the Committee can understand how much of a burden that might be?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness the answer now, but I can write to her with that data.
Our view is that we need carefully to consider any possible unintended consequences; the need not to place a disproportionate burden on those investigating; and how such a provision might be drafted so as not to capture deaths which are outwith the scope of the amendment.
To conclude, we are not saying no. What I am saying is that I understand the noble Baroness’s concern that the existing statutory provision for the preservation of a deceased child’s social media data should operate as effectively as possible and we will consider carefully what further steps could be taken. As I have just mentioned, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I spoke briefly and agreed to meet, and I am happy to extend that to include Ministers from both the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
I look forward to updating the House on Report on this important topic. I cannot update the Committee in relation to the issues with the United States now, but I will write to the noble Baroness in relation to that. In the meantime, I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I start by accepting all the various offers to meet the Minister and thank her for her tone in her response and for expanding it to the other departments as necessary. Before I withdraw the amendment, however, I want to make a couple of things very clear.
First, this sits in the broader issue of failure to have the Online Safety Act implemented properly. It sits in the broader issue of why children are dying at all. Moreover—I think I have to say this both on my own behalf and on behalf of the bereaved parents—I am very grateful for everybody’s gratitude, but we do not want gratitude; we want action. I am sorry, but on the actual points—six months, the same letter about the guidance that never comes—I do not accept that there cannot be a way of exempting sick children, and I would like to know how many children died in car crashes because someone was on the phone.
I do not think it is an excuse, and I really feel at this point that officials and Ministers are way too comfortable with unintended consequences. How about the House starts with dealing with the intended consequences of its legislation that are not being properly implemented? With that, and the promise to come back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(b) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a),(c) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (England and Wales and Northern Ireland: encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to an offence within paragraph (a),(d) an offence under the law of Scotland of inciting the commission of an offence within paragraph (a), or(e) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence within paragraph (a).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change (aligning the approach taken in relation to inchoate offences with that taken in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11).
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 439 and 446 in my name are technical in nature and provide changes to the provisions concerning the youth diversion orders.
Government Amendment 439 relates to the definition of ancillary offences in Clause 167(3). Clause 167(1) provides that a court may make a youth diversion order if satisfied, among other things, that the respondent has committed a terrorism offence. The definition of “terrorism offence” includes ancillary offences such as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence. This technical amendment ensures that the definition of an ancillary offence operates as it should—I know that the noble Lord will appreciate this—in the context of the Scottish legal system and also aligns the drafting of the legislation with that in Schedule 11 to the Bill for consistency.
Government Amendment 446 relates to Clause 182(2). This disapplies the six-month time limit for a complaint to a magistrates’ court in England and Wales so that an application for a youth diversion order may be made at a later date where necessary. The amendment similarly disapplies the six-month time limit in Northern Ireland. I know that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, also has two amendments in this group. I will respond to those after hearing his representations. I beg to move government Amendment 439.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 440 and 445. Amendment 440 would require the respondent to receive citizenship education in British values, and Amendment 445 sets out what those values are. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has also added his name to these amendments. He very much regrets that he is unable to speak this evening due to a commitment chairing a police commission that he is not able to change.
I will make two preliminary points to avoid misunderstandings. First, these amendments are not about personal values or lifestyles. They are about the fundamental political values on which our whole society is founded. Secondly, these values are not a kind of innovation in our law; they already have to be taught in our schools.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest again. My son is an academic who specialises in online radicalisation and Prevent, and advises Governments, Parliaments and public bodies, including our own Parliament and Government.
From these Benches we share the Government’s concern about the rising number of young people investigated for terrorism offences, and we welcome, in principle, earlier intervention and diversion away from the criminal courts. However, we also share many of the misgivings already expressed, particularly about using a low balance of probabilities civil threshold to impose what are, in effect, terrorism-labelled controls on children.
As drafted, the bar for imposing a youth diversion order is worryingly low for a measure that can place wide-ranging restrictions on children as young as 10, a breach of which may result in custody despite no criminal conviction. Can the Minister explain why the court need only find an order “necessary”, rather than applying the more familiar “necessary and proportionate” test for such intrusive measures?
The scope of these orders is also troubling. A YDO may be made if the court finds it more likely than not that a child has committed a terrorism-related offence, behaved in a way likely to facilitate one, or—as clarified by government Amendment 439—attempted, encouraged, aided, abetted, counselled or procured a listed terrorism offence. On top of that, I question the inclusion of “serious harm”, given that the justification for the serious nature of these orders is terrorism prevention, which needlessly risks widening the type of behaviour captured.
I am grateful for the briefing provided by Justice, whose work highlights that orders of this kind would fall more harshly on young people than they would on adults, especially those with intellectual disabilities or who are neurodivergent. There is also a real risk of disproportionate use against minority communities, particularly Muslim children, given existing disproportionality in terrorism policing. Action for Race Equality reports that, between 2021 and 2024, 31% of under-21s arrested for terrorism-related offences were Asian, despite making up only 9% of the population.
Justice and other organisations argue that, if youth diversion orders proceed, the Bill must be significantly strengthened, and we support that direction of travel from these Benches. They call for piloting before full commencement; a requirement for police to give reasons if they depart from youth offending team advice, with those views placed before the court; proper risk assessments before an order is imposed, as with respect orders; and for statutory guidance from the Secretary of State to be mandatory, not optional.
Amendment 445 would require those receiving youth diversion orders to be given citizenship education in British values. From these Benches, we recognise the good intent. It seeks to equip young people with a positive understanding of civic life, reinforcing shared values through education. That is a worthy aim which merits some consideration, particularly for those at risk of radicalisation.
We do have questions, however, around implementation and resourcing, and whether this might dilute the order’s core diversionary purpose. In short, we do not oppose early diversion in principle but require stronger safeguards in practice. In the case of the measures in the Bill, this chiefly means a higher and more appropriate test, tighter scope and better protection for vulnerable children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I missed the moment. I thought somebody else was going to speak, so I will be quick. In the last couple of weeks, the United Arab Emirates has curbed state funding for its citizens seeking to enrol at UK universities over concerns that they will be radicalised by Islamists. That is an extraordinary piece of information and it also indicates that we do have a real problem. I commend the Government for trying to find new ways of dealing with young people who are being radicalised: I understand that that is a real problem.
I was slightly worried that, in the same week, we heard about a regional game being used by some councils for Prevent, which identified one of the signs of pre-terrorism or extremism as those who support cultural nationalism, which seems to me to be muddling up again the terms of what is an extremist, what is not, and so on. I do not know that it is entirely clear.
I happen to share the reservations that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised on civil liberties and these youth diversion orders. As I have previously said, I am always concerned that where we lack moral courage in taking on radicalisation in public, procedures, process and legislation are used as a substitute for that. In that context I commend the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on at least trying, as he has many times, to raise the issue of teaching British values. Ironically, it has become quite controversial to say that we should shout British values from the rooftops. We are not encouraged to do so. That itself can be seen as exclusionary, not inclusive enough and so on. The noble and right reverend Lord has explained in detail why he wants that. I am not necessarily a fan of all the things in that list or the whole notion of citizenship education, but I think it is the right approach.
However, I note with some irony that some of the British values in that list include the importance of freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. This is in a Bill that could curtail many of those very things, and those of us who try to raise them have been dismissed and told, “Those things are not a threat. Don’t worry about it. We need to do this”. I also think it is interesting that in that list we have “regular elections”. I agree; I would not be cancelling them myself. In relation to the rule of law, jury trials are a key part of British values and democracy, ensuring that we have democratic representation for ordinary people and that justice is done in the criminal justice system. We know that they are in jeopardy.
I want us to push British values more. That would be far more important and effective than youth diversion orders. If we are to have youth diversion orders, let us have some British values in there—and if we are going to mention British values, let us stick to them ourselves, rather than just having them as a list that we can nod through.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I want to come in on the remarks of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and his support of Amendment 445. I have a great deal of sympathy, and I have spoken in other debates that he has had about these matters in the past. I am completely convinced that he is right in his exhortation to us as a country to define some fundamental values to which we should all subscribe.
My only reservation about this amendment is about listing values prior to a national conversation and resolution and some premeditative thought about what a list of British values should contain, being very clear that we are not rubbing up against other parts of legislation covered elsewhere. I can see the attractiveness of this kind of list in general, but it would worry me a great deal.
The example I give is proposed new subsection (2)(e), “respect for the environment”. I see what the attempted definition of the environment is, but I respectfully say that that would apply to any country and is not necessarily British in terms of its value, as is the case with several of the other items on the list. I advocate bringing it back on Report with more generalised language rather than being so specific, or perhaps leaving this for another piece of legislation that is more directly concerned with it.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I fully endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lady Brinton, and I want to raise a couple of other issues. I am particularly disappointed to see no reference in Part 14 to safeguarding, risk assessments or multi-agency consultation beyond youth offending teams. This fails to heed the lessons of the Southport inquiry, which highlighted serious failures in information sharing, in part because the perpetrator was under 18, alongside failures to conduct forensic risk or mental health assessments. Without mandatory input from local organisations such as schools, social services and mental health teams, there is a real risk that youth diversion orders will repeat Southport’s tragic oversights.
On Amendment 445, which would require those subject to a youth diversion order to receive citizenship education in British values, we understand and have no problem with the intent. Helping young people develop a positive sense of civic life and shared values is a worthwhile aim. But we believe that if such education is to be offered, it should sit within mainstream or voluntary youth provision as support, not as a condition of a terrorism-labelled civic order. Linking values education to a coercive measure risks blurring the line between welfare and enforcement and could undermine both the legitimacy of the order and the educational goal itself. While we support early diversion, we need stronger safeguards to protect both the wider public and vulnerable children.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation given of the Government’s amendments.
We recognise the principle that underpins Amendments 440 and 445 tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. Youth diversion orders are intended not simply to punish but to steer young people away from future offending and towards constructive participation in society. The idea that citizen education might play a role in that process is an interesting one. However, we feel that a number of practical and conceptual questions arise from those amendments.
First is the issue of delivery. Citizenship education of the kind envisaged here would require properly trained providers, appropriate materials, sufficient time, et cetera, to have any meaningful impact, and we should be cautious about placing new statutory requirements on the Secretary of State without a clear sense of how they would work on the ground or whether they would be consistently available across different areas.
Secondly, the amendment sets out a detailed definition of British values—or, as the amendment would have it, “values of British citizenship”—built around five specified pillars further defined within the amendment. The noble and right reverend Lord mentioned the Prevent strategy of 2011, which set out four basic values, as a matter of government policy rather than in legislation. I think we all recognise the importance of democracy, the rule of law, freedom and equal respect, but it is fair to ask whether we should enshrine those in legislation and, further, whether this is the right place to attempt such a definition, particularly in the context of youth diversion. Plainly, there may be disagreements about what might be included, as we have heard, how these concepts should be framed and whether a fixed statutory list risks being either too narrow or too prescriptive.
More broadly, we should also consider whether youth diversion orders are the most appropriate vehicle for this kind of civic education or whether those objectives are better pursued through schools, families or community-based interventions that can engage young people in a more sustained and holistic way. But I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the arguments he made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the amendments.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, with his Amendments 440 and 445 has commenced a wider debate on the provisions of youth diversion orders. Through the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have had a wider discussion about the purpose of these orders, a point also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
The requirements that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has tried to seek for the Committee to add would require, as part of the youth diversion order, the Secretary of State to design a package of citizenship education that can be imposed on a mandatory basis. I recognise that there is a positive intention in that, and I do not mean to argue against that positive intention, but I point the Committee to Clause 169(1)(a) and (b). There is no exhaustive list of requirements and restrictions that can be imposed through the youth diversion order. Clause 169(1)(b) says a youth diversion order may
“require the respondent to do anything described in the order”.
So the order can include a range of measures. Although later on there is a list of potential activities under Clause 169(3), it is also intended that the order is flexible so that the court can impose any requirement or restriction that is considered necessary for mitigating a risk of terrorism or serious harm. There is no restriction on imposing any type of educational requirements on a respondent, provided that they are necessary and proportionate for mitigating the risk.
I come back to the purpose of the order, which is to look at individuals who are not yet at a significantly high threshold to look at how, with police and youth justice services, we can offer interventions on a voluntary basis rather than potentially also as a mandatory requirement. I understand the intention of the amendments, but, again, I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has mentioned: there is no definition of the element that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is trying to bring into play.
I argue that a youth diversion order seeks to reduce terrorist risk and actively diverts respondents away from further contact with the criminal justice system but is not as specific or restrictive as the noble and right reverend Lord seeks in his amendment. Police and youth justice services may seek to provide supportive interventions on a voluntary basis, and that could include education. It may well include some wider education about the importance of Britishness or personal development programmes. However, as I have said, supportive interventions may also be imposed on a mandatory basis if the court agrees that is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public. That could be, for example, mandating to attend appointments such as those offered through Prevent, including ideological or practical mentoring. The point that I come back to with the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendments is that they would add a level of prescription that I would not wish to see in relation to the potential court’s activity.
A number of noble Lords asked whether the Government intend to pilot youth diversion orders. The answer is no, not at this moment. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will look at having it as an order that is available to the courts and would have the sole purpose, under Clause 169, of prohibiting the respondent from doing anything described in the order or requiring them to do anything described in the order. That could include the very points that the noble and right reverend Lord has brought forward, but I do not wish to restrict the process by being too prescriptive in Clause 169.
With those comments, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I ask the noble and right reverend Lord to reflect on the points that I have made and, I hope, not move his amendment.
“(aa) require the respondent to receive citizenship education relating to British values (see section (Further content: citizenship education)).”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, if I am allowed to respond, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their qualified support. I point out that there is no need for a national consultation about our fundamental British values because they are already there. They were brought into effect by the Conservative Government under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. My point is that the formulation is not adequate. I understand what the Minister says about not wanting to be too prescriptive, but I hope the Government will take much more seriously the whole question of fundamental British values and see whether there can be greater awareness and support for it in a whole range of legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
A word of warning to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries: if at this stage a noble Lord starts making a speech, we normally have to call the voices on it. But we will keep going.
Amendments 441 to 444
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(da) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to this clause, provide that a youth diversion order may include conditions relating to the inspection of an online account accessed by means of an electronic communication device the use of which is restricted under the order.
“(5A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account, (b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 169, page 207, line 19.
““online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible;”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 169, page 207, line 19.
“(11) The reference in this section to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 169, page 207, line 19.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2) The following do not apply to a complaint under this Chapter—(a) section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for complaints etc);(b) Article 78(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)) (time limit for complaints).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the time limit for applications to a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland (as well as in England and Wales).
Viscount Hailsham
“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.(3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 448. In respect of Amendment 447, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am happy to say is in her place.
The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the acts alleged are, in substance, acts that support terrorism in the sense that ordinary citizens support that concept. Amendment 447 would make explicit the intent required—namely, that the act alleged was done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. Amendment 448 would provide for a defence when no such intent existed. The amendments are quite clearly in the alternative. I prefer Amendment 447 but I would understand if noble Lords preferred Amendment 448.
What I suggest is profoundly unsatisfactory and unjust is the present law. Consider the demonstrations that we see in the streets and squares of London, with hundreds of citizens holding placards that read, “I support Palestine Action”. Consider that these individuals are often elderly and retired folk, mostly self-evidently respectable and usually without much knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action. Now, they may be self-indulgent, and some indeed may accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of supporting terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept?
I suggest that these people are using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. If they stood outside the Israeli embassy and shouted, “Down with Netanyahu”, or words to that effect, they would be doing no more than they are entitled to do, and I do not think the use of the shorthand, “I support Palestine Action”, however ill-advised the use of that phrase may be, makes them guilty of an act of terrorism.
There are at least three serious objections to the law as it is now framed. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I do not refer to the European convention, although that may be engaged in this instance; I refer rather to the long-established rights of citizens to demonstrate and express their views. That is a right to be restricted in only the most compelling of cases.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am really thrilled to be supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, because obviously he is so sure of everything he says that I must be doing the right thing. I will deal with Amendments 447 and 448 slightly differently, because they are different. I support Amendment 447 because it directly responds to how the law is currently interpreted by the courts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that someone can be convicted without any requirement to show that they intended to support terrorism. The offence is about the suspicion of others, not the intention of the person charged.
That might explain the law as it stands, but it also exposes the problem. Under this interpretation, people are criminalised not for what they mean to do but for how their actions might be perceived or might be used symbolically by other people. The court accepted that this interferes with freedom of expression but concluded that the interference was justified because Parliament chose to prioritise disruption and prevention. This amendment asks Parliament to look again at that choice. Criminal law normally punishes intentional recklessness. Here, however, we are dealing with offences that can be triggered by clothing, images or symbols, with no need to show encouragement, promotion or support in any real sense. That is a very wide net, and one that risks catching protest, journalism, art, research or sheer provocation.
The Supreme Court has told us plainly that if this is to change it must be done by Parliament. That is exactly what this amendment does. It ensures terrorism laws target people who genuinely seek to assist terrorism, not those whose conduct just creates an appearance or a reaction. I obviously feel very sensitive about this, being a serial protester.
On Amendment 448, the Terrorism Act gives the state some of its strongest powers, and rightly so, but with powers that strong, we should be very careful about who gets caught up in them. Amendment 448 follows directly from the same Supreme Court judgment and addresses its practical consequences. The court accepted that Section 13 interferes with freedom of expression but held that the interference was justified because the law was clear and because Parliament had chosen that. It is all our fault. That leaves people prosecuted under these provisions with very little room to explain themselves. If you carry or display something and it falls within the scope of the offence, your purpose largely does not matter.
This amendment introduces a basic safeguard—a defence for those who can show that they did not mean to encourage, incite or enable terrorism. The Supreme Court emphasised foreseeability that people should be able to control their conduct if the law is clear, but foreseeability alone is not the same as fairness. A system that criminalises without regard to intent places an enormous burden on lawful expression and legitimate activity. By putting a defence on the face of the statute, Parliament would make it clear that these offences were aimed at genuine support for terrorism, not incidental, critical or contextual engagement with proscribed organisations.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 450 seeks to amend the current Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. I declare that I am an officeholder in the APPG on Counter Extremism, a member of the APPG on Terrorism and Security and, probably most importantly, a victim of terrorism.
For 20 years this year we have had a criminal offence of glorification of terrorism, but under the current Section 1 there is a very high bar to meet, as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to emulate the terrorism being glorified. The glorification of terrorists or their organisations is certainly not confined to my part of the United Kingdom but rather is a threat to the security of the nation as a whole. Recently, on the streets of some of our major cities, we have seen proscribed organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah lauded and that has had and will continue to have its consequences, particularly around radicalisation of our young people.
As someone who has lived with and through terrorism, I am always alert to anything which would encourage it and bring back those dark days of intimidation, murder and mayhem. Unfortunately, over the years since the cessation of IRA violence, there has been a strategy from Sinn Féin to lionise and put terrorists and their actions on a pedestal. There are many examples of Sinn Féin politicians, many of them senior figures, attending commemorations and celebrations for the lives of those who sought to murder their neighbours. In the interest of time, I will not bring any examples of that, because I have done so in the past in this Chamber, but suffice to say that apart from the pain which it causes to their innocent victims, it also seeks to normalise terrorism as a legitimate way to bring about political change.
The retraumatisation of victims is unforgivable and needs to be called out on every occasion, but public acts of commemoration also send a very clear message to young republicans that what these young men—and they were usually young men, and in some cases 16-year-olds, sent out to murder—did was in some way honourable. It glamourises what they did. To young impressionable people who have little knowledge of the life experience of the brutality of the IRA, it makes them sound like heroes, which they patently were not.
The often chanted, “Ooh ah up the Ra”, is a symptom of the continuing glorification of dead terrorists. It is, to some, a cultural chant, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we allow people, including those in positions of authority, to glorify terrorism in the way which, for example, the current First Minister of Northern Ireland does, then it normalises and sanitises terrorism and, in a cyclical way, will lead to young people being radicalised again. Witness those young people on our streets supporting the actions of Hamas, for instance. Many of them know little about the Middle East but think it is very hip and trendy to support Hamas because they hate Israel.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If all you know about the IRA is that it took on the Brits and the First Minister says they were a great bunch of lads, then you can be forgiven for thinking that “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a grand wee chant. Those young people know little of the devastation, murder, intimidation and barbarity of the IRA because it is not something that is talked about by their First Minister.
As regards the current provisions, there have been no prosecutions under this section, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland. When I asked the Minister a Written Question on this issue concerning England and Wales, he indicated on 2 December that there had been 52 prosecutions in England and Wales since 2011.
In 2023 the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, looked at this part of the legislation and decided that Section 1 did not need updating. With respect to the KC, I would argue that it needs change so that glorification of terrorism—in other words, glorifying the acts of a current proscribed terrorist organisation—in and of itself should be a criminal offence.
Mr Hall looked at this legislation in 2023, before the onslaught of support on our streets for Hamas; perhaps in this context he may need to look at this issue again. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in his current review of public order and hate crime legislation, could also look at this issue.
In the meantime, I submit that change is needed for the following reasons. First, defeating terrorism is about not just militarily defeating the organisation but not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Unfortunately, with the continued glorification of the IRA by senior politicians and others, there is a deliberate attempt to rewrite what happened in Northern Ireland. It was an unjustified, bloody, murderous terrorist campaign—nothing more and nothing less—and those of us who grew up with threats and the attempted murder of members of our family will not allow that to happen. We need society as a whole to recognise it as well. I urge noble Lords not to utter the phrase, “Yes, but it’s Northern Ireland and that’s all very difficult”. It is really not difficult. Whether you were a loyalist terrorist or a republican terrorist, you were a terrorist: someone who went out with the sole purpose of murder. Of course, the same is true of other shades of terrorists today.
Secondly, as I have already pointed out, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current Section 1. Why is that the case? Policing across the UK should be without fear or favour and certainly should not allow political bias or fear to enter decision-making. Unfortunately, there have recently been examples of political decision-making by police chiefs in the West Midlands and Northern Ireland.
Last week, two former chief constables of the PSNI gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Select Committee in the other place. Sir Hugh Orde and Sir George Hamilton were chief constables who took independent operational decisions. Despite policing in a very political environment, they made, as far I and many others are concerned, decisions based on policing considerations alone. They were not always popular with all the politicians, but that should never be the primary focus of a chief constable.
The two chiefs recounted instances when they had taken policing decisions and rejected attempted political interference. For Sir George, that was around the murder of Kevin McGuigan in 2015 and for Sir Hugh it was the Northern Bank robbery in 2004. On both occasions the political classes in London—and, disgracefully, Dublin—were interfering in the policing of Northern Ireland. They were trying to pressurise the two chief constables into not calling out the involvement of the IRA. They both resisted. I am very glad they did. It did not make politics in Northern Ireland any easier at that time—I remember it very well—but it was the truth. How sad then that their successor Simon Byrne decided to give in to political pressure when it was applied to him.
Unfortunately, some police chiefs do not feel strongly enough about implementing laws that may be seen as picking a side. I regret to say that some police chiefs, and indeed prosecutors, instead of applying the law without fear or favour, may be too timid and not want to rock the boat in taking a prosecution that may fail or may upset politicians or “communities”. The question is: how do you test whether all the elements of an offence are present if you are not willing to take it before the court? This amendment deals with those issues, I hope, as it removes the emulation part from the offence, and therefore makes it easier to prosecute.
Thirdly, I indicated at the start of my speech that I am an officeholder in the APPG on Counter Extremism. If we do not amend the law as this amendment seeks to do, I fear that the continued glorifying of terrorism will radicalise and lead more of our young people into terrorism. At present, there is a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, it will continue to grow, along with all the problems that it causes in our society.
Fourthly—and finally, noble Lords will be glad to hear—what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism and all the inherent problems that will bring, or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was and always will be wrong?
We need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism. I hope this amendment goes some way in doing that. Terrorism wants to put a wedge between those from different backgrounds. It wants to bring fear to ordinary citizens. In all its forms, it must be defeated. I hope that there will be support around the Committee for this amendment.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I r support Amendment 450 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. Like the noble Baroness, and many others in this Chamber, the legacy of terrorism is not merely an abstract term for me. It is not a sentence on a piece of paper. It is a real legacy that still affects people to this very day. It is remembered in empty chairs at the dinner table, in empty pews at church, physical and psychological scars, and in communities still working hard to build trust after decades of fear. In that context, the glorification of terrorism is not simply offensive but harmful. It reopens wounds, undermines reconciliation, and sends a message that the suffering of victims is somehow secondary to a warped narrative of heroism or resistance.
The noble Baroness’s amendment addresses a serious gap in our legal system. At present, the offence of encouraging terrorism includes the glorification of terrorist acts only where it can be shown that such glorification encourages others to emulate that conduct; in other words, the prosecution must demonstrate not only that terrorism was praised but that the praise was likely to inspire imitation. Of course, I fully support that extent of the existing legislation, but the threshold should be raised further to account for the rampant glorification of terrorism.
We know that radicalisation and normalisation do not operate only through direct instructions. People are rarely told in explicit terms to copy an attack. Instead, extremist messaging often works by celebrating past acts, portraying perpetrators as martyrs or heroes, and presenting violence as justified or necessary. That justification that there was no other way than terrorist acts came from the lips of the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill.
Over time, that steady diet of praise and romanticisation of violence can shift perceptions, especially among the young, making the step towards active support for violence feel less extreme and simply a culmination of calculated indoctrination. In Northern Ireland, we have witnessed at first hand how cultural and political narratives can remake paramilitary violence into something that is lauded and, disgustingly, admired.
References to paramilitaries appear in murals, slogans, music, and online spaces, endlessly. Everywhere we look across Belfast, in our schools and universities, in shops and on street corners, there are daunting inscriptions of acclaim about the IRA. We even have an entire political party that is yet to find it within itself to admit that IRA terrorism was wrong.
This amendment is so important because we have to think of the future and our younger generation, who now chant “Up the Ra” carelessly, believing it to be an act of rebellion and resistance. They look to their political leaders, who tolerate this: indeed, they encourage and applaud it. Let us pause for a moment and think about that. They may not be glorifying terrorism with a view to directly inciting others, but they are normalising it so radically that it would make it acceptable for someone to engage in terrorism, believing it to be morally right after years of repeated misinformation and miseducation. Yet for victims and their families, these are reminders of the bombings, shootings and intimidation, not symbols of pride.
This is a very personal and touching amendment because, like the noble Baroness, I and my loved ones were victims of terrorism too. For a moment, I take you to two young people, a young girl of 21 and her brother of 16. That day she was engaged to be married. She went to get her engagement ring and, of course, she was excited to show her engagement ring to her aunt and to her loved ones: this was wonderful. The future was her oyster and the future was wonderful. They left to show the engagement ring. Some family members joined them in the car. As they went down the road, they were stopped because they were told by another person that there was a car over the hedge. They went to help and noticed the car had its nose into the field, but there was no one in the car. Somebody said, “Just watch, there could be a bomb”, and as they walked from that scene, the car blew up. Those two young people, aged 16 and 21, were blown to bits.
How do I know? I was the one who was sent to the morgue to identify them. That girl was a beauty queen but, as I said before, there was nothing beautiful that day in what I saw. The 16 year-old lad did not even get on to the slab. His few bits were lying on the floor and I was not allowed to look. But then they did pull it back to show just a few bones. That was all that was left of the lad, a boy of only 16. This is reality. Their mother died of a broken heart shortly after that. I understand why. But who really cares? Who really cares except those who carry the burden, day after day.
Then they hear “Up the Ra” as a chant by young people, encouraged by their political leaders, who think that it is acceptable and normal. That is why we have broken hearts. So when I say to noble Lords that this amendment is necessary for the safeguarding of our younger people and the safety of our future, and to prevent the further glorification of terrorism, know that I say it with the full emotion of remembering everything that terrorism took from my life and the many people who would be here today if it were not for it.
Even when there is no expressive call to take up arms from individuals who glorify, the effect can still be to sanitise a campaign that caused immense suffering to all of us. If a statement stops short of urging others to replicate violence, it may fall outside the offence. That creates a loophole where the celebration of terrorism can circulate freely, so long as it is carefully worded. This amendment would remove the requirement to prove the encouragement of emulation and recognises a simple truth: glorification itself can be dangerous.
The same principle applies to contemporary terrorist organisations across the world. Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are associated with serious violence against civilians and are proscribed under UK law, yet we continue to see instances where their actions or symbols are publicly praised or celebrated without an explicit call for others to follow their example.
This amendment would not criminalise discussion, analysis or criticism of past events. It would not prevent historians, journalists or communities examining the causes and the consequences of conflict. This distinction is between explaining or debating terrorism and praising it. Leaving this loophole in place risks sending the wrong signal that, so long as no one says, “Do it again”, the public celebration of terrorist violence is acceptable. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is always an honour to follow both the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Their personal experiences—my family has not been directly affected—are a salutary reminder to this Committee that the choices that we make on this issue are not academic debating society-type issues. They are choices that have very real implications in the real world.
With the amendments in this group, we face a fork in the road. While two of the amendments may be very well intended, I say with respect to those who tabled them that they would take us down a dangerous and wrong road. The third amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others, would strengthen our opposition to terrorism.
Terrorists and terrorist organisations, whether they are. in a Northern Ireland context, republican or loyalist, or in other contexts Islamists, far-right extremists or a whole range of other bodies, do not just appear. It is right that we do not judge terrorism on the basis of its ideology, but on the basis of its actions. That has been the position that this House and others have taken when deciding on proscription for terrorist organisations. They do not appear simply out of the ether. No one becomes convinced of a particular issue and, that night, picks up a gun or a bomb and goes out and carries out a terrorist act; it is a long process. It is a situation in which people get converted to a position of extreme ideology and extreme action out of that. It is a position in which the message is that the particular terrorist actions that are being carried out are normalised. They are presented as the only alternative way to sort out a problem. A lot of that is based on the surrounding language.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, introducing this group, said that he did not see a distinction between somebody saying, “I oppose the Netanyahu Government” and “I support Palestine Action”. With respect, I think there is a deep distinction. One is expressing a political opinion and the other is supporting a proscribed organisation. In a Northern Ireland context, it is the distinction between someone saying, very legitimately, “I am an advocate for a united Ireland” and somebody saying “I support the IRA”. There is a clear-cut distinction and we should draw that distinction.
If Amendments 447 and 448 were to be agreed, we would create an absurd situation. We could have platforms where people get up and urge people to support ISIS, Hamas, the Real IRA or other organisations. None of those things are supporting an individual act of terrorism, but they are clearly drawing people in. They are, if you like, the gateway drug into terrorism. As such, we would create a very dangerous situation where we facilitate in particular young people from different backgrounds becoming radicalised and bit by bit being drawn into that terrorist world.
It is critical for the past, the present and the future that Amendment 450 is put forward. On the issue of the past, we know, and we have heard from the last two speakers, of the real impact on and the real hurt for victims of terrorism, from whatever source they come. When someone gets up and eulogises the terrorists of the past, they create great hurt for those families, whether in the situation indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, or, for instance, if someone on a platform was to praise Hamas on 7 October, or refer to those who were involved in the attacks in 9/11 or Bondi Beach as some sort of martyrs for the cause. All those things are deeply hurtful to the families and the victims.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 447, 448 and 450 could not be more different, but they seem to show two sides of the same coin.
Dealing first with Amendment 450, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has said. It is absolutely appalling that people should glorify terrorism in any way. We listened to some painful stories of what had happened during the Troubles. However, this is not a Northern Ireland issue. Having listened to three people from Northern Ireland, as an English woman who was formerly married to a man from County Down, now deceased, it is important to point out that this happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are people in this country who support ISIS; there are people who support Hamas, and there are other groups that are not so well known that may well be supported. Whether it be the appalling acts of the IRA or the equally appalling acts of Hamas—whether the genocide is or is not does not seem relevant at the moment—there should be no glorification. I hope that the Government will listen to this, because, although it is promoted largely by those from Northern Ireland, as I have said already, it is equally applicable to the rather parts of the United Kingdom.
Looking at the other side of the coin, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir. The sort of people who are going out on the streets, particularly in London, to support Palestine Action, could not be more removed from the terrorists and the people glorifying terrorism. A lot of very decent, naive—as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called them—and, in many ways, foolish people are going out because they do not like what happens in Gaza. We get a great deal of coverage, rightly, about what is happening there. That creates a situation in which decent and very often elderly people are going along and behaving very stupidly, but they absolutely are not terrorists.
I wonder whether the Government were all that wise to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It is an abhorrent organisation, but I really do not think it is within the ambit of terrorism as we normally understand it—but we are stuck with it because it is now the law. However, that does not mean that everybody who is foolish, naive and stupid enough to go out on the streets, very often in bad weather, to yell out rather stupid slogans are themselves terrorists. I am not sure that it brings any praise on the country, and particularly the Government, to have huge numbers of these people arrested. What on earth is going to happen to them? We look rather foolish with this, and I hope that the Government might look with considerable sympathy particularly at Amendment 447, which is the one that I would support.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Baroness’s very fair presentation of the two sides of that argument. However, we cannot know, because we have no evidence, what the deeper, inner views may be of those people she referred to, who are leaving an event or a protest, or whatever. It is perfectly plausible that they may attend a demonstration but that their views are more extreme than those exhibited at the demonstration. I would therefore be a little bit cautious about not accepting that glorification is the door-opening to the more sinister motives that people can have. We know, from the extent of antisemitism that we have seen in our streets and from what is preached in mosques or liked on social media, that there is a fairly sinister trend in the glorification of terrorism.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very sorry, but I have not entirely understood whether the noble Baroness is disagreeing with me on Amendment 450 or Amendment 447.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I think possibly a bit of both, but Amendment 447 is the one that I would disagree with her on more.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I find it extraordinary that glorification of terrorism can be supported in any way; it just seems abhorrent. In relation to Amendment 447, I am not entirely objecting to the police arresting people, because they may well arrest people when they are not sure, but if there be a great many people whom the police would recognise as not likely to be supporting terrorism as such, I hope that those people would be released pretty quickly from the police station.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as always, the rational logic of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been very helpful in untangling this issue. She has summed up some of my concerns and things that I am not sure about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has brilliantly articulated her worries about the glorification of terrorism and how it normalises terrorism into everyday life. I think that is valid. She notes that this is based on little knowledge, and little knowledge can be very dangerous. Whatever one thinks about Northern Ireland —and I assure noble Lords that at this end we do not all agree—it was a bloody conflict, and it is not to be treated lightly. Those who simply reduce it to slogans in the way that was described do not know what they are talking about.
In support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my concern is that when we get proscription legislation wrong, we also rob the notion of terrorism of its power to shock, of its content, and the danger is that we relativise it and trivialise it. I think a huge amount of damage has been done by putting Palestine Action into the same category as Hamas or ISIS. Even though Palestine Action, as has been described, is an obnoxious or objectionable organisation and should be held to account under the law when it uses criminal damage, I do not think it is a terrorist organisation. Putting those self-indulgent OAP protesters or students into the same camp as Hizb ut-Tahrir calling for jihad or those hate preachers I quoted earlier, for example, seems misplaced. It turns what I consider to be numpty protesters into some sort of heroes in their own mind, and it has captured the imagination.
If you go to universities, you now find that people think that anyone who supports Palestine Action is a free speech warrior who we should all get up and support. They do not understand why I, as a free-speecher, am not supporting it. The problem is that they now all think that terrorism is sitting on a road and saying, “I support Palestine Action”. If only terrorism were sitting on a road and shouting, “I support Palestine Action” or wearing a badge. That is not the content of terrorism, and there is a lack of knowledge about what terrorism is. If people think those people are terrorists, we sell young generations short by them not understanding what we are up against and what the problems are. Proscribing organisations, which is a very important weapon to use in a particular way, is one thing; treating those who simply are vocal in their support of that organisation, as has happened with Palestine Action, can just mean that we conflate slogans and words with terrorist actions or violent actions and empty them of any horror.
The difficulty is that I am torn. When I hear Bob Vylan, Kneecap or those student groups shouting “Internationalise the intifada” or strutting their stuff and cosplaying their support for barbarism, it is sickening and I want something to be done. Listening to the moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, you can see that that is what you might want to tackle. It is just that I do not think proscribing Palestine Action did that, and we are now paying the cost for having inappropriately used proscription of an organisation to devalue what we mean by terrorism.
If we no longer have young people in this country who have lived experience of terrorism—sadly, young Iranians do, for example, so let us not concentrate entirely on ourselves—they think going on a demo outside a prison fighting for the hunger strikers inside is as bad as it gets. They do not get it, but I do not think we have helped them get it either, which is why I am nervous about saying that glorification of terrorism in that context should be against the law, because we have to be very careful about what we are making illegal.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which I signed. I do so, paradoxically, as someone who has written in the Daily Telegraph, of all places, against the proscription of Palestine Action. My argument was that there is a difference—this is to address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner—between the intent of the protesters and the nature of the organisation.
There must be some common-sense way of differentiating between a violent organisation such as Palestine Action and Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaeda and so on. In fact, a way has been proposed, because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, produced a whole report for the last Government suggesting that organisations such as Palestine Action be subject to certain sorts of orders that would separate them out. But that raises the question: what about Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the IRA and so on?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to contribute briefly, because we have had some powerful speeches and important contributions. Wherever you stand on the issue of Palestine Action and the arguments around that, one thing that we are all agreed on, as we have heard in this debate, is that the glorification of terrorism is wrong and should be outlawed, because it retraumatises victims and legitimises violence in the eyes of young people today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has done a great service in raising this issue and tabling this amendment. It is particularly focused on Northern Ireland, although, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is absolutely an issue across the United Kingdom. The thing that concerns me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referenced, is the inconsistency in approach by the prosecuting authorities and by the police in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom in relation to this whole area. Whatever law we may pass or whatever amendment we may put in place to strengthen the prohibition on the glorification of terrorism, what effect does it actually have in reality when it comes to the victims seeing people who are carrying out these acts of glorification and speaking in terms of glorification? Will we actually see a difference in prosecutions and effective action against those who perpetrate these crimes?
When I speak to victims, they of course remember the events that have particularly affected them—we have heard the very powerful speeches by my noble friend Lord McCrea and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and all of us in this House from Northern Ireland have either personally experienced acts of terrorism against them or know people who have. The victims want that remembered. They want justice, of course, but they also want not to be forgotten. They want a consistency when it comes to those who glorify these terrible atrocities and acts of violence. They want action to be taken as appropriate, and when they see things being said and done, and nothing happens as a result of it, they lose faith in government, in politics and in democratic processes, and that is why people turn to other means that they think will get something done about such action.
It is very important that we have proper and appropriate laws in place against the glorification of violence or terrorism right across the United Kingdom. What I would ask for is consistency on the part of the prosecuting authorities and the police to take this matter more seriously than they do and have a common approach throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to express my sympathy in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The Minister will recall that, some months ago in Grand Committee, we discussed the noble Baroness’s amendment on this question of the glorification of terrorism. I absolutely respect the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and others about ambiguity, which clearly exists in some of these contexts, but for the issues that the noble Baroness talked about, there is no ambiguity—“Ooh ah, up the Ra” means only one thing. There is no ambiguity either in Kneecap—the word itself refers to glorification of a sadistic paramilitary act. When I spoke that day, many Members in the Room had not heard of Kneecap. Since then, Kneecap has become much bigger. I understand completely the difficulty the Minister has now in concluding, but I wish to convey to him this problem. Since we spoke that day, the glorification of terrorism has not abated or weakened; it has actually increased. Entire communities are getting locked into this, and that is a problem that faces this House.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, briefly, I know this might sound as though it is a Northern Ireland debate, but it is not. I respect and accept the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, saying that this is an issue in England and Wales and more broadly. But we have experience of it—maybe more experience than others, or we may think we have. I stand here having served in the home service security forces in Northern Ireland for 18 years. Colleagues were murdered and friends were murdered. I carried their coffins. What is more, I have seen the devastation of some of those families in the aftermath, when some people lauded those terrorist acts. We see the rewriting of history and the glorification of terrorism—they taunt the families.
To prove that it is a much wider issue than Northern Ireland, back in 2014, two people were jailed for the glorification of the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. So I accept that it is a much wider issue than Northern Ireland, but I want all noble Lords to understand the experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and others have of the Northern Ireland situation and what we have seen.
I had a friend murdered back in 1985. That evening, going past their house, people were stopping and jeering and applauding that murder. Is that not the glorification of terrorism? I do not care whether it is the glorification of a terrorist, terrorists or terrorism—to me, it is all the same. If you are glorifying terrorism, that is wrong and should not be allowed. That is the rewriting of history. Even now, we have the taunting of young people because their grandparents, uncles or other family members were murdered. That is wrong and it cannot be allowed to continue. That is why I support Amendment 450.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 447 and 448. I also support the spirit of Amendment 450, with one reservation, which I will explain, and which maybe the Minister would have taken in any case.
As far as Amendments 447 and 448 are concerned, I have spoken in several debates about the scope of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the way it works, in particular because of the breadth of the offence under Section 12 of support for a terrorist organisation and the offence under Section 13 of wearing an article or uniform, and the publication of images, as arousing suspicion of support for a proscribed organisation. I spoke, from the point of view of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, about the unnecessarily broad scope of those sections as they stand, and in support of our amendment seeking a statement about the right of peaceable protest in this Bill.
My immediate concern arises, as it arose then, out of the arrest of some 2,700 people at peaceable protests against the proscription of Palestine Action. I take the point entirely that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made, that we cannot dig into the minds of those protesters and work out what their motivation was and then create some kind of thought crime that covers their position. What we can do is consider what the right of peaceable protest is and what price we pay for it. It is quite clear that this is not about the rights or wrongs of the proscription of Palestine Action. In supporting these amendments, I am solely concerned, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with the right to protest and the consequences of the way that the Terrorist Act 2000 works, branding peaceable protests as an offence against that Act, and branding as terrorists protesters who have done nothing more than carry banners or publicly express the view that the proscription is wrong.
I quite agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that there is a massive distinction between the exercise of that right, however foolish those protesters, or some of them, may be and however much we may disagree with them, and branding them as terrorists and comparing them with those who are actually carrying out terrorism, which is, I suggest, not justified. It is not, of course, confined to protests in connection with Palestine Action, but the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made was also that the consequences for those who have been arrested, be they elderly retired people or students on the threshold of their career, are, in his words, wholly disproportionate. Those are words with which I entirely agree.
Some of those arrested have been charged. The charging process is nowhere near complete, and, as I understand it, the charging will go ahead so long as the proscription lives—the proscription is, of course, the subject of challenge. But if those arrests proceed inexorably to conviction then those people convicted will be branded as terrorists. As for the sickening nature of the slogans they may shout, “Globalise the intifada” to me can mean only one thing, and that is killing Jews for being Jews, and I speak as a Jew, and the phrase, “From the river to the sea”, is wholly unpleasant and has only one meaning. But for students to sit down and listen to and then repeat those slogans at a peaceable protest does not mean that they support acts of terrorism. It means, as the noble Lord said, that they are opposing, and opposing with force, some of the actions of the Israeli Government and of Israeli soldiers in Gaza, which have been, as the British Government and most western Governments have said, absolutely appalling themselves. It does not mean that they are terrorists. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is right, as I said, that we cannot go into their minds to see what their motivation is, but we have to tailor the criminal law to actions, combined with a mental state.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Would it help the noble Lord if I were to indicate that if and when I bring this amendment back on Report I intend to make it clearer that it is in respect of current proscribed organisations—in other words, terrorist organisations now? I accept the noble Lords’s point about historical context—it is an important point on which I have reflected during the debate—but if the amendment is brought back on Report, we could narrow the ground in terms of glorifying the acts of current proscribed organisations.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. That would, or could, remove my concern about the amendment about the glorification of past terrorist acts that may subsequently be seen as justified. I will certainly look at any modified amendment that the noble Baroness brings forward. Because I so strongly support everything that she and others have said in support of the spirit of Amendment 450, I would wish to support an amendment that dealt with those possibilities.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this has been a vigorous and wide-ranging debate, dealing with very difficult questions. I thank my noble friend Lord Hailsham for his amendments. Regretfully and unfortunately, I have to disappoint him by stating that I cannot support them because I believe they would significantly weaken the effectiveness of our counterterrorism legislative framework at a time when the threat we face is persistent and evolving. In the words of my noble friend Lord Goodman, there is a darkening context.
The amendments would insert an intent requirement, where Parliament has deliberately chosen not to do so. Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 created offences that were crafted to disrupt terrorism at an early stage to prevent radicalisation and normalisation, and to give practical assistance long before violence is carried out. That preventive purpose would be undermined if the prosecution were required, in every case, to prove a specific intent to encourage or to enable a terrorist act.
It is also important to be clear that the current law already contains safeguards, especially in the court process. Prosecutorial discretion, a public interest test and judicial oversight all ensure that these offences are not applied casually or indiscriminately. I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that these must be applied consistently. The suggestion that individuals are routinely prosecuted and tried without regard to context or fairness is not borne out.
On a different note, I support Amendment 450 from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The glorification of terrorism, in all cases, is abhorrent. We have seen such glorification, from certain quarters, of the IRA and Hamas, which serves only to normalise such atrocities. I simply cannot add to the power of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and indeed by other noble Lords who spoke in favour of her amendment, which I simply cannot add more to, except to say that I support it and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, beginning with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Proscription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools that we have. The UK’s proscription regime was established through the Terrorism Act 2000, which noble Lords are aware of, and there is a statutory process for it. Under that Act, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned with terrorism. An organisation may be concerned with terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Decisions to proscribe an organisation are not taken on a whim; they are taken on advice from the security services and significant intervention from Home Office officials to examine the case. They are not taken lightly. They are ideologically neutral. They judge an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause.
I say neutrally that Palestine Action was deemed to be over the threshold of the 2000 Act and, on advice to the Home Secretary, to be an organisation concerned with terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed—this House and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported that proscription—it is an offence to be a member of it, to invite support for it, to make supportive statements, to encourage others to join or support it, to arrange or address meetings to support it in furthering its activities, and to display, carry or wear articles in a way that would arouse suspicion that one is a member or supporter of it.
Amendments 447 and 448 from the noble Viscount would apply to the offences concerning support and the display of articles under Sections 12 and 13. For the same reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has given, these amendments would ultimately limit these important offences in such a way that they would become largely unusable in practice. I do not believe that that is his intention, but that would be the practical outcome. In relation to the offence of inviting support, it is already established that the offence requires a knowing, deliberate invitation to support. The changes proposed in the amendment would mean an additional burden for the prosecution to overcome.
I have heard comments, including from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that belief in or support for Palestine Action should not cross that threshold. Amendment 447 would import a further mental element, requiring intention. That goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it is at odds with the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person intended to encourage, incite, facilitate or otherwise an act of terrorism. To provide a defence similar to the effect for the prosecution to disprove would again undermine the core element of the offence.
Section 13 is currently a strict liability offence, meaning that there is no requirement to evidence the intent behind the conduct, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, mentioned. It is important that we say to the Committee that free speech is important. The right to criticise the State of Israel and to support Palestine is important. It is also quite right that, if people wish to say that they do not wish to see Palestine Action proscribed, that is also within the legal framework. It is a matter for the police, who are operationally independent, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide whether a crime has been committed. In particular, the CPS will want to consider, in charging an individual as opposed to arresting them, whether the prosecution is in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is a vital safeguard that prevents prosecutions from going ahead which are not in the public interest.
I have previously defended in this House the proscription of Palestine Action. The decision was not taken lightly. The police and the CPS have independent action, but I suggest that the noble Viscount’s amendment would, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, undermine the purpose of that. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, that those actions have been taken for a purpose. The threshold has been crossed and I suspect that, for those concerned with Palestine Action, more information will come to light as potential future prosecutions continue, which I think will show why those decisions were taken. We have a court case ongoing at the moment. I put that to one side, but that is my defence in relation to the noble Viscount’s proposals.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, not least because I seem to have had the effect of uniting the two Front Benches in a common position so far as my two amendments are concerned. There is a huge difference between the glorification of terrorism, which is deeply offensive, and those who demonstrate their hostility to the policies of Israel by holding up a placard. I do not believe they are the same. In time, we must come to restrict the application of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act. That said, we have discussed it sufficiently for this evening, and I hope I will be forgiven if I withdraw Amendment 447.
Warm Homes Plan
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding on the Statement made in another place.
I very much appreciate that this plan has taken longer to finalise than expected, with a year’s delay, but I have to say that we will join those who support a measured and incremental move towards low-carbon home heating systems. If that is the objective, there are many measures in the plan today that are worthy of support, not least, for example, the greater role for home batteries.
Where our concerns lie is with the test against which any transition must be judged; namely, its impact on the capital and operating costs for families—in other words, on household bills. Having read the Statement and the impact assessment, our view is that what should be a welcome and important initiative to save consumers money looks more likely to have the opposite effect, with rising energy bills and taxpayer-funded initiatives, not least through the recently locked-in energy costs well above market rates.
In the impact assessment, there was no reference to the impact on tenants as a result of the requirements placed on landlords. I very much hope the Minister will address whether these costs can or in his view will be passed on to tenants.
Regarding heating systems, 50% of the British public are unlikely to install low-carbon systems, such as heat pumps, due to high installation costs. Even if the warm homes plan takes the proclaimed £200 off bills for the 5 million projected homes over the next four years, which is unlikely given current energy and projected costs, that will still leave 25 million homes without respite, worrying about the installation costs of the new heating systems. How does the Minister intend to reach the other 80% of the country struggling with higher bills?
Does the Minister agree that the central and more enduring problem is the ongoing operational costs of low-carbon heating? Two-thirds of people with heat pumps now find it more expensive to heat their homes than they did with their previous system. Frankly, that is no surprise. The price of electricity per unit currently sits at a multiple of that of gas, yet the Secretary of State’s plan offers no redress for the long-term costs of this policy. Perhaps the Minister can now lay out whether the department has plans to address the high operating costs of heat pumps.
The Secretary of State has also announced the founding of a new quango, the warm homes agency. The Government claim to be offsetting this with the abolition of Salix, but I am sure your Lordships are aware that this is not a like-for-like trade-off. Can the Minister now confirm what his colleague in the other place could not and give an estimate of the cost of both the new arm’s-length body and the net cost of this quango reorganisation?
Another key element of the plan is the move to introduce widespread solar panels in the UK, set out in the Warm Homes Plan as
“Unleashing the rooftop solar revolution”
on page 33. This is timely, given the Prime Minister’s visit to China. The reason this is so important is that well over 80% of PV modules used in the UK have significant Chinese content. The true figure is very likely to be above 90% when we include panels made by Chinese-headquartered manufacturers. As so many non-Chinese brands still rely on Chinese wafers, a panel can be assembled in, say, Vietnam, Malaysia or the EU and still be heavily Chinese in content. That is why estimates based only on the brand’s country of assembly understate the real proportion. Including these brands, most energy analysts treat around 90% of UK PV panels as having Chinese content in their supply chain.
China’s share of the global supply of polysilicon is some 80% to 85%, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’s share of China’s solar polysilicon has been variously estimated at between 35% and 45% at its peak, all of which implies that 25% to 35% of global solar polysilicon has plausibly been sourced from Xinjiang-based plants. Can the Minister inform the House how Great British Energy can meet its legal obligation to track exactly which polysilicon plant was used for any UK import, whether that plant is in Xinjiang or elsewhere, and whether specific batches are verified as free of Uyghur labour?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken in this House and discussed with me this morning his concern that forced labour has been widely documented in the region and that there is a need to shut the door on forced labour components found in Chinese supplies of polysilicon. Does the Minister therefore accept that independent auditors and NGOs still argue that full traceability is patchy due to multisite production in different factories and different time periods, continuously shifting new contracts and new plants coming online, and lack of full transparency at the level of polysilicon origin?
As I have said, the intentions behind the warm homes plan are commendable, and the help with capital costs is welcome, but this must be accompanied by plans for lowering operational costs, coupled with wider reforms to bring down the cost of electricity. Otherwise, this well-intentioned plan will become a passport to higher domestic electricity bills. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. Promised nearly two years ago as a “flagship response” to soaring energy bills and poor home efficiency, it has taken some time. Delays have consequences, particularly for the millions of families living in homes that are cold. They are paying the price.
That said, this plan brings forward welcome innovation and greater policy coherence, particularly through its focus on climate adaption and mitigation. It marks a significant milestone amid a national affordability crisis and an accelerating climate emergency. But if warm homes are one side of the equation, cheap, clean energy and market reforms are, indeed, the other. We need both to succeed.
The commitment to £15 billion of public investment is ambitious and right. Ministers forecast upgrades for 5 million homes and relief from fuel poverty for 1 million families by 2030. These are the benchmarks by which this plan will be judged. Too many families still live in cold and damp homes, causing ill health and rising health costs. Labour is right to call out the “lost decade” under the Conservatives, when investment collapsed and home upgrades fell by 90%. Greater vulnerability followed Russia’s invasion: 85% of our homes were still dependent on fossil fuels, and £40 billion in emergency support was required. This was the cost of the Conservatives’ delay.
Against this backdrop, the plan’s innovative pathway is welcome. Partnerships with British climate tech firms could, if implemented well, build a world-class retrofit industry, but SMEs need support, predictable regulation and open markets to bring products from design to real homes quickly. The proposed retrofit innovation panel and sherpa approval models are positive, if they deliver.
I am concerned about the six-month cliff edge gap between previous schemes winding down and new schemes starting. I ask the Minister for greater clarity, particularly on the use of the £1.5 billion reserve to help fill this gap.
I welcome the focus on climate adaption. Increasing heat will be a slow-motion killer, so homes must be built for cooling as well as warmth. Including air-to-air heat pumps and supporting communal ground source systems is vital. Passive measures are also needed. The plan’s emphasis on consumer-led energy flexibility is encouraging, with an ambition to triple solar by 2030. Integrating solar batteries, EVs and smart meters can turn homes into virtual power grid participants, cutting bills and easing pressures on the grid. However, this “rooftop revolution” will falter without faster grid connections, planning reform and more resources for local authorities.
The transition must create good jobs and uphold ethical standards. I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to the Great British Energy Bill on forced labour. Our clean energy revolution must not rest on exploitation. What measures are we undertaking with our EU partners and others to build our solar manufacturing capacity?
Despite the promising direction and other areas of overlap, this plan stands in isolation from Great British Energy and our community energy plans. This is a missed opportunity. We welcome the support for the UK heat pump industry but question whether £19 million will be enough. The dilution of deployment ambition is troubling—well below the 600,000 a year target by 2028. Even with a £7,500 grant, typical households still face a £5,000 shortfall, which will be too costly for many.
I reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ call for free heat pumps and insulation for low-income families. We welcome the innovation financing models but ask for greater details. Can the Minister assure the House that these will be properly regulated and transparent, and will not put people’s homes at risk?
The new rented sector standards, benefiting some 3 million over the next four years, are also welcome, but how will their effectiveness be measured? We welcome the warm homes agency as a single point of leadership. What more can be done to make sure that people are not the victims of energy scams? Can the Minister explain how the plan will be monitored and reviewed, and confirm some level of flexibility?
Too often in the past, insulation was missing or simply done badly. Government must work to restore confidence. It is essential that we do insulation and we do it well. Without insulation, the best technology cannot prevent heat loss.
Finally, I agree with the Opposition: we need energy market reform, and clean energy needs to be affordable. Electricity costs are too high; while they are that high, households will not change from fossil fuels, so we must balance levies and take them off bills.
To conclude, we welcome the ambition and the funding, but ambition must now be met with urgency, coherence and fairness. Ministers must close the funding gap, put insulation back at the heart, reform markets to make clean energy affordable, and back British workers and innovators. If Ministers rise to that challenge, this plan can deliver not just warmer homes but a fairer, cleaner and more secure future for Britain.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their contributions on this Statement. I think I can say that both of them were pretty supportive, which is nice for something as large as this. I therefore bank that support, as it were, and will address myself to the very pertinent questions that the noble Lords put forward.
In banking the support, it is worth reflecting on the real scale and the extent to which there are winners all round in the proposal before the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is £15 billion altogether. I might add that in respect of the total commitment by this Government, this is, all things considered, about two and a half times the total commitment of the previous Administration regarding overall energy-efficient measures. The noble Earl is also right to point out the collapse in measures that took place under the previous Government. Overall, this scheme is determined to get it right not only this time but for all sections of society.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out what will happen to the 80% who he thought would not be particularly affected by this. When you look at the breadth of the proposals in the warm homes plan, there is indeed something for everybody in it. There are low-cost and interest-free loans for the private sector. For the private rented sector, there is the quite dramatic commitment to make sure that landlords spend £10,000 uprating their properties to what will provisionally be band C EPCs by 2030. By the way, there is no real evidence that landlords have put rents up in relation to their commitments to the previous level of spending £3,500 to increase to band E.
For the social housing sector, there will be grants and particular investments in that form, and, of course, substantial investment in seeking out those in fuel poverty and bringing treatments forward for their homes that will substantially uprate their warmth and decrease their bills. We really will decrease their bills, sometimes quite dramatically, and make sure that those are permanent changes, not just ones that go with the volatility of the energy market.
The noble Earl asked about the whole question of forced labour and solar panels. I appreciate his point. We live in a world in which it is difficult to assess accurately who is doing what as far as forced labour is concerned. In the Modern Slavery Act we already have the wherewithal to take action, if we can identify those circumstances. Certainly, this Government would want to do that. We are collaborating with the Solar Stewardship Initiative, which seeks to have a more accurate spotlight on the issue of forced labour. It is something we are very well aware of. The noble Earl will understand that this is a difficult area to get absolutely right straightaway, but it is work that is ongoing.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the ambition for heat pumps. I have a memory, from another time in the other place, about what happened with that ambition. The previous Administration declared a three-year programme for a total of 90,000 heat pumps, underwriting 30,000 per year for three years, up to 2025. Then there was a gap of three years, when nothing would have happened. Suddenly, in 2028 or 2029, there would then be 600,000 heat pumps installed per year—a piece of Guillermo del Toro magical realism, if ever there was one. That is what we are seeking to avoid on this occasion.
We want to have real targets, which we can actually meet. That is also important in terms of investment in UK heat pump manufacture, for example. We need to know that there is a steady market for those heat pumps, where they are increasingly manufactured in Britain—boiler manufacturers turning to heat pump manufacture—and that we have that target in place and we can reach it. With the measures in the warm homes plan—the £7,500 underwriting for heat pumps currently; the new underwriting for air-to-air heat pumps; the ability of heat pumps to be put into area schemes; and low-carbon loans and grants—there is every prospect that we can get to the target of 450,000 in an organised and effective way.
I am conscious that I have not been able to reply to every point that noble Lords made in response to the Statement. If I have missed anything, I will be happy to write to both noble Lords, so that we can have a full set of answers to their questions today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s emphasis on solar. Is my noble friend following developments in the use of perovskite, a material that potentially greatly increases solar panel efficiency by as much as 30%, while reducing panel manufacturing costs? Are we monitoring the work being carried out by Oxford PV, a company—among others—at the forefront of the development of this technology? Can we be assured that, if it turns out to be commercially viable, we will back manufacture of the product in the United Kingdom and not leave it to the Germans or Chinese to take control of the market?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It might be helpful if I go into a brief disquisition on perovskite and its qualities, to inform the House about the noble Lord’s question.
Perovskite is, quite simply, a wonder product in terms of solar development. It is a mineral, but largely made synthetically, and manages to trap a wider spectrum of the sun’s rays than traditional silica does. So-called tandem panels which have a silica panel underneath and a perovskite film on top have an increased efficiency of 20% to 30%—which is a fantastic addition. With solar on a field basis, far more power can be got out of a smaller series of solar arrays. As far as home solar is concerned, an enormous boost can be achieved—perhaps half the power used can be got from the roof, with the same amount of solar panels than would have been put on previously. It is a very exciting development.
Oxford PV is the company spin-out from Oxford University, which is engaging in the development and commercialisation of those tandem panels. There is also a pilot production line under way in Germany.
The Government have been very supportive of Oxford PV in its journey. There was an original grant for Oxford PV of, I think, £668,000 in 2014 and there have been grants from UKRI subsequently. Oxford PV is presently in some discussions with the Department for Business and Trade, as this is something that we very much look forward to developing for the great advantage of the solar world generally. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are active in this pursuit, with the prizes that it can bring.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very extensive Statement on the warm homes plan today. Does he agree that heat pumps are most effective when paired with insulation? Could he say a little more about what the Government will do to increase insulation in existing homes now that the ECO scheme is ending? If the future homes standard is going to be published and implemented, when will that take place? Bearing in mind all the floods that we have seen over the last number of weeks and days, what further climate change adaptation measures will be considered? Maybe the Minister would write to me on that final issue.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. The question of heat pumps and insulation is very clear: heat pumps do not work as well as they should if a property is poorly insulated, so increasing insulation hand in hand with heat pump installation is a very wise thing to do. However, among other things, the warm homes plan tries to take a measured view of where fabric improvements are perhaps necessary and needed, and where other forms of enhanced energy considerations could take their place. There are properties that are very difficult to insulate to the right standards but, with solar, batteries, heat pumps and such things, they can come up to the sort of standard you require. So this warm homes plan is a little more careful about the combination of various factors. Elements of the plan will involve fabric—probably about 700,000 homes will continue to get fabric uprating—but other factors will be coming into being.
I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness about the future homes plan and how that will work out. It is under way at the moment and will, among other things, ensure that new homes, when built, will be of a sufficient standard that they will not need fabric uprating for the future, because it will be in the definition of those new homes. That is going to be produced shortly and I will certainly inform the noble Baroness about its progress as soon as I can.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This is great news, my Lords. It would be good to be reassured that the warm homes agency will act as a one-stop shop to provide advice to consumers to help them navigate through the best options for their homes. The fuel poverty strategy rightly recognises the importance of using and sharing data to support more effective targeting and delivery of fuel poverty interventions, such as energy efficiency upgrades and installations of low-carbon technologies. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to use anonymised and aggregated smart meter data to enable those interventions to reach those households in greatest need?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
There is a large number of applications of anonymised and aggregated data from smart meters, assuming that you have enough smart meters installed in any one place to make the data meaningful. We still have some problems with that and the smart meter rollout but, in general, it can be used for a variety of applications. For example, the warm homes programme is looking to develop area-based applications wherever possible: having the data on where people in fuel poverty are and what areas have a concentration of such people gives you a very good chance of making sure that you can relate the investment that you are putting in with actually making a difference on fuel poverty. Previously, one of the problems with schemes was that we just did not know where those people were. Quite often, the schemes operated a scattergun approach that did not really hit the target as they should have done.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the bottom of my heart because, for a long time, I have been very uneasy that we have approaching 1.6 million children living in conditions that can only be described as Dickensian. It simply should not happen in a modern UK. We are uniquely exposed to the volatile gas price and we have the least energy-efficient houses in Europe. It is a litany of failure and I think that this plan goes some way to turning that around, at long last.
It tackles three very important issues as far as I am concerned. I want to explore one in particular with the Minister. It tackles the cost of living issue, which is going to be even more important in view of the volatility of the global political situation. It tackles the health impacts on poor families and of poor building standards, and it creates UK jobs. But when the Environment and Climate Change Committee took a look at some of the issues to do with consumer behaviour and change to new systems, the lesson that came out loud and clear from all the witnesses we saw was that they wanted help to make it easier and cheaper to switch from inadequate, polluting and ineffective standards to modern technologies. The role of the warm homes agency is very welcome and is really important. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about how that agency will be tasked with ensuring that the schemes that are in place do not fail and that the sort of consumer confidence to make the change that is going to be really fundamental to this is going to be promoted?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right to focus attention on the extent to which consumers and the general public will have confidence in the changes that are afoot and will be able to make decisions as to how they participate in those changes in the best way possible. I think that is one area where, as a country, we have been quite lacking in the past—although I exempt from this the nation of Scotland, which for quite a while has had a national advice agency in place, giving impartial advice and assistance and seeing that through to installation.
One of the functions of the warm homes agency will be to provide unbiased, informed advice and assistance to ensure that what is being proposed for individuals’ homes—and after all, they are the things that are most important in their lives and the things they are most concerned to get right—are done with a high degree of transparency, reliability and effectiveness. I hope that will be an early development of the warm homes agency as it comes into place. In the context of what we have seen just recently with the problems that ECO4 has had and the Public Accounts Committee report on it, we really do have to have that advice in place, and also that regulation to make sure that the standards that we think we are delivering to people really can be applied properly.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I put on record my profound support for this very significant commitment, which meets not only the fuel poverty objectives but the environmental and economic objectives in developing our energy policy. The Minister may dimly recall that many years ago I was the Minister who brought in and developed the Warm Front programme, which was so tragically cut off in 2010.
In parallel to the information to consumers—and in particular to the least well-off consumers—about their options on insulation and heating, there needs to be a commitment to an effective employment policy, because a lot of new skills are going to be needed. To ensure quality control, we need to ensure that those who are working for the installers under the authority of the warm homes agency are effectively trained and that there is a forward plan for them. At the moment we do not have adequately skilled people on the ground, and a lot of those who are there are getting on a bit. So a new, significant programme of training and retraining is going to be needed in parallel with this commitment, which in general is a fantastic one. I congratulate the department on it.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. We are going to need a great deal of upskilling of individuals who are participating in this programme to make sure that they provide the best possible service that they can. Indeed, to return to that PAC report on ECO4, that was perhaps an element of the process whereby people were putting, in particular, external home cladding into place without really knowing what they were doing. It is very important that we do that and that we see the jobs that are going to come out of this programme—200,000 or so of them—as permanent, long-term, skilled jobs and not fly-by-night little contract jobs. We want to make sure that we are investing in real jobs and good jobs.
I bear the scars of the previous things and congratulate my noble friend on his hand in Warm Front, which he will recall, along with programmes such as CERT and CEFs, really made a difference at that early stage. It is tragic that they all collapsed in the way they did. The opportunity now not only to bring back the lessons learned from those programmes but to expand them in the way that has been done warms the bottom of my heart.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hailsham
“Proscription process: parliamentary involvement(1) Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (3) unless prior to making such an order, the Secretary of State has placed before the Intelligence and Security Committee (the ISC) or any committee which by statute may have replaced the ISC (the replacement committee), a statement of the reasons for making the order and the ISC or the replacement committee has published a report regarding that order.(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that by reason of urgency the requirements of subsection (3A) cannot reasonably be complied with and the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.(3C) If subsection (3B) applies, the Secretary of State must within seven days of the making of the order, place before the ISC or the replacement committee, a statement of the reasons for making the order and within a reasonable period thereafter, the ISC or the replacement committee must make a report to Parliament.”.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 449, I will speak briefly to Amendment 454. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support for Amendment 449. I have a nasty feeling that I may be uniting my noble friend Lord Cameron and the Minister in opposition to my amendments; I will forgive them on this occasion. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support on the previous group—I rather hope I might get some support from him on this occasion.
The purpose of Amendment 449 is to ensure that Parliament has as much information as possible before a decision to proscribe is made. I accept, of course, that it is not possible for Ministers to disclose in general debate all the information which they may have received in private and which, in their opinion, justifies proscription. I worked in the Home Office and the Foreign Office for around seven years, so I am under no illusions. Of course, the Minister, who has a similar track record, will be under no illusions either.
Having regard to the serious consequences of proscription, we need to do all that we reasonably can to ensure that, when a proscription order is made, Parliament is as well informed as it can be and that the justification for the order is well based. Otherwise, we are wholly reliant on the judgment of officials and Ministers. Without being unduly personal, on matters of such importance, I do not wish to be exclusively reliant on the judgments of Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman or Liz Truss—however informed and considered some may suppose them to have been.
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward. Amendment 449 would create a precondition to the Secretary of State’s ability to make a proscription order. Proposed new subsection (3A) would require that, if circumstances allow, before the Secretary of State makes an order, the Secretary of State must place before the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
“a statement of the reasons for making the order”
and, in such circumstances, a report of that committee must be published before the order is made. I accept that there may be circumstances in which the urgency of the matter demands more immediate action. Proposed new subsections (3B) and (3C) address that eventuality. In effect, the procedure would be the same as that provided for in proposed new subsection (3A), but it would be retrospective.
In either event, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to examine the stated reasons in much greater detail than the House could do in public session. A degree of scrutiny and interrogation should be possible. The report of the ISC could be very important, reassuring Parliament as to the propriety of the order if that is the opinion of the ISC, or alerting Parliament if the ISC is not supportive of the order. I do not pretend that this would be a complete safeguard. However, it would certainly be an improvement. On that basis, I commend Amendment 449 to the Committee.
On Amendment 454, I think I can anticipate the arguments that will be advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She and I agree on an awful lot, and I know I shall support her on this matter.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee. Of course, I speak for myself only but very much with those concerns in mind.
As noble Lords have heard from my friend who is also noble—but I cannot call him a noble friend—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I will speak to his Amendment 449, which I support, and my Amendment 454. I am grateful for his support and, on the latter amendment, for that of my noble friend Lord Hain, who is very sensibly not in his place at this hour. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.
In contrast with the previous group—I am sad that there are not more participants from the previous group here—these are modest process amendments that are capable of uniting everyone who spoke for and against the various amendments in that group. Both these amendments are about increasing parliamentary involvement in and scrutiny of exceptional executive power—in particular, the power to proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.
To be clear—this may surprise some Members of the Committee—I believe that such powers are capable of being proportionate. In a democracy, no one should be allowed to organise a private army, in particular one that targets humans, and a democracy is proportionately able to respond by proscribing a terrorist organisation. It is none the less an awesome and exceptional power for the Executive to say that people will be prosecuted not just for their terrorist actions but for fairly broad and loose associations with people who may or may not be guilty of terrorist offences.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to both amendments in this group for the reasons that have been so eloquently set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
The first point is that proscription is a very significant power for the Executive. The consequences are severe. Conduct that was hitherto perfectly lawful becomes not only unlawful but criminal. For that reason, we need to have proper checks and balances. The second reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, is that these amendments are actually quite modest. They do not try to limit or amend the scope of the criminal offences, which was the case with some of the amendments perhaps in the previous group; all they try to do is increase parliamentary scrutiny. To me, the case for doing so seems unanswerable.
The third point is that, as we know, there has been an intense debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, and views on that may differ. But my opinion is that, whichever view one takes, one should be able to support both these amendments—particularly in light of the very interesting exchange in the previous group between the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, where the idea that seemed to emerge was that there might be some way forward on tightening “glorification” by reference to proscribed organisations.
But if the reference point is proscribed organisations, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting proscription right, and we must be able to interrogate fully any proscription that the Government decide. For that reason, I think there is simply no answer to Amendment 454. We need to have one order per organisation that the Government intend to proscribe. It is no answer to say that this would place an undue burden. Civil servants will obviously have to spend considerable time putting together the evidence for proscription and, as part of that, requiring them to prepare two different orders is not asking for too much. Nor is it an answer to say that this would be an increased burden for Parliament.
When we vote on or scrutinise a proscription, we take a decision of great importance, for the reasons I have mentioned before. We should not be put again in a position, as was the case a few months ago, where we have to decide on the proscription of very different organisations—where, on the one hand, you have organisations for which the case for proscription is probably uncontroversial, and on the other hand you have examples of organisations for which there is objectively an argument to be had as to whether proscription is a good idea or not. For these reasons, I give my full support to both these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too support both amendments. I support Amendment 449 because proscription is a huge power. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used the word “awesome”, and it is indeed an awesome power: it can turn ordinary behaviour into crime. Parliament should not be asked to rubber-stamp those decisions without proper scrutiny. Proscription can criminalise membership, association and even everyday activity, yet at present these decisions are made almost entirely within the Executive, with very limited parliamentary oversight, and that concentration of power carries risks. It leaves decisions open to mistakes or overreach and of course it can also undermine public confidence in counterterrorism law.
Parliament and the public need assurance that proscription is based on sound reasoning, reviewed independently and grounded in evidence. One thing we did not really have when we were asked to proscribe Palestine Action was evidence. Since then, we have had hints of various kinds, telling us that we will see when the evidence comes out and we will understand why that proscription was justified. But so far, I would argue, it has not been justified. Independent scrutiny is particularly important when the intelligence underpinning a proscription is classified and supposedly cannot be shared widely. Where decisions are urgent or complex, having a committee report afterwards helps Parliament and the public understand the reasoning and reinforces the legitimacy of the action taken.
I would have also supported this going further to address the recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson KC—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—that proscriptions should be time-limited and expire after a set period, such as two years, unless Parliament is asked to proscribe yet again. As we know, once proscription has happened, in effect it lasts forever. Decisions this serious should not be made in private and left to drift. Parliament deserves a proper look at the evidence, so I hope that the Minister is going to bring us the evidence, as he keeps hinting in various speeches.
Amendment 454 is an excellent amendment, I have to say, because, when we proscribed Palestine Action, it was bracketed with two groups. I cannot even remember their names. They were right-wing, fascist organisations, and we had absolutely no choice about that. Had we dealt with each of those individually, we could have made a much better decision, I would argue. It seems that we just have to trust the Government—and who trusts the Government any more? Certainly not me, and many of the general public agree with me. Asking us to trust the Government is not the way it should be. It really should have better oversight.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 449 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 454 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I do so on the grounds, really, that—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Apologies, I did not mean to put the noble Baroness off, I was just trying to recall whether she was here for the start of the group.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I came in just as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, got up.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I was simply going to say that I agree with the reasons given by noble Lords, but in particular I want to stress the importance of having checks and balances in the constitution. We need, particularly where our constitution is unwritten, to pay particular attention to the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. It is so simple for the Executive to bring in proscription, but it must be equally simple for Parliament to be able to scrutinise it and afford a proper check.
It is really for that reason that I support these amendments, at a time when constitutional liberty is under threat, on both sides of the Atlantic, from executive power, whatever the Government in power. We heard earlier this evening from a US Supreme Court judge who spoke of this happening under recent Presidents, going back some time, and it has happened under Governments of all complexions here. Therefore, I commend these important amendments because of the centrality of the separation of powers.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, used the phrase “getting proscription right”. He is absolutely right. I support both amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was correct in saying that we have to have in respect of Amendment 449 more independent parliamentary scrutiny, and that goes for Amendment 454 as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was right to say that we are looking for checks and balances. These amendments are concerned with democracy, with Parliament having a say and the opportunity to consider government proposals.
Amendment 449, which was economically and persuasively moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is plainly sensible. Involving the ISC and for the Government to give reasons to the ISC before proscribing an organisation would increase the confidence of Parliament—all sides of both Houses—in the Government’s decision. As everyone has said, proscribing is a serious and important decision on a matter of great significance for the rights of the individual, the rights of groups and the public at large. I suggest that it would not just increase the confidence of Parliament to have ISC involvement; it would also increase the confidence of the public in these decisions.
The ISC is, of course, independent, parliamentary—it involves Members of both Houses—and cross-party. That seems to me, and I suggest is, an important reason in favour of ISC being involved. It is entirely consonant with the Minister’s assurance on the last group that the Government act on the advice of the security services in making decisions on proscription. That is as it should be—we would expect them to act on advice—but to involve the confidential parliamentary committee in that process can only improve the procedure.
I refer to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We should always be aware of the dangers of an overmighty Executive not being as reasonable with their opponents and with others as we are used to expect. Things may change. Looking across the water at the United States, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, did, shows us that respect for democratic independence and procedures is fairly shallow and has to be protected. We should not be complacent about the possible dangers, and I suggest that this is a way of showing that lack of complacency. For the reasons of an added layer of democracy and added independence, the involvement of the ISC would add to our national security and not detract from it.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, when she said that there could be no reasonable opposition to Amendment 454. The idea that orders should be able to relate not to a single organisation but to multiple organisations is simply absurd. Palestine Action was proscribed alongside two other organisations. One was the Maniacs Murder Cult, a “white supremacist, neo-Nazi organisation”—I am using the Government’s description. It had claimed a number of violent attacks globally; it supplied, and supplies, instructional materials explaining to followers, mostly online, how to conduct terrorist attacks.
The other organisation was Russian Imperial Movement, another white supremacist organisation, described by the Government as “ethno-nationalist”, with the aim of creating a new Russian imperial state. That may sound eccentric, but it runs a paramilitary organisation called Partizan, which increases its adherents’ capacity for terrorist attacks. Indeed, two Swedish nationals attended Partizan in 2016 before committing a series of bombings in Gothenburg, Sweden, with devastating results.
The idea that Parliament—this House and, more importantly, the other place—should be given no choice but to approve or to deny proscription of all is, frankly, an insult to Parliament. MPs and Peers were given no choice but to approve or deny proscription of all. I know that MPs on the Liberal Democrat Benches were deeply offended by that denial of choice. It is illogical, undemocratic and unfair. It demeans Parliament not to allow individual MPs to exercise a fair choice over whether to proscribe a particular organisation. These decisions need to be taken individually and on their own merits, having regard to the arguments for and against proscription of each organisation concerned as it arises. The procedure for that would be simple, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained. It should not be a job lot put before Parliament as an executive decision, with no choice given to Parliament except the choice to endorse the job lot or not.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but very interesting debate. Amendments 449 and 454 concern the important and sensitive process by which organisations are proscribed under the 2000 Act.
Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham raises a legitimate question about parliamentary involvement and scrutiny in the proscription process. As we have heard, the ISC has deep expertise, access to classified material and a well-established role in scrutinising national security matters. There is therefore an understandable attraction in ensuring that it has sight of and can report on the reasons for a proposed proscription before an order is made, except in cases of genuine urgency.
It may be, though, that the ISC would be receiving the same advice on issues of proscription from the same organisations, be they the police or the security services, as the Government, so there might be an issue of duplication. It is also important to recognise that proscription decisions often need to be taken swiftly in response to fast-moving threats. The Executive have to retain the operational flexibility to act decisively to protect public safety. I accept that the amendment recognises this through its “urgency” exception, but we need to consider very carefully where the balance should lie between enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and the need for speed and discretion in matters of national security. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on whether the existing framework already strikes the right balance. If there is scope for a greater formal role for the ISC, that cannot impede operational effectiveness.
Amendment 454, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, addresses another important aspect of the proscription regime. As we have heard, it would require each proscription order to relate to a single organisation only. It seeks to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I can understand the argument presented, as usual, so eloquently by the noble Baroness, but I also recognise that these are ultimately matters for the Executive and not the legislature. I await with anticipation the views of the Minister on both amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendment 449 and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 454. I will try to answer the points raised on both those amendments.
The amendment from the noble Viscount would require engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee in advance of proscription orders being made. As somebody who served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for five years, I know that it is a trustworthy vehicle which does not leak, and which deals with security service issues from both Houses in a responsible manner. In the light of that, the noble Viscount will be aware that my right honourable friend the Security Minister, following the Palestine Action discussion we had, has written to the Intelligence and Security Committee and expressed his intention to write to the committee ahead of future proscription orders being laid in Parliament and, if the committee wishes it, to give a privileged briefing on the reasons why the proscription is being laid so that the committee can, in confidence, have that detailed information before it. I think that meets the objectives of the noble Viscount’s amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. That is indeed a good step forward but it falls slightly short, in that I do not think he is telling your Lordships’ Committee that the committee will be making a report to Parliament.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The time gap between informing and debate would be for the Security Minister to determine. In most cases, I would expect—without wanting to put a burden on my noble friend Lord Beamish as the chair of the committee—that the chair would probably want to contribute to that debate and would be able to inform the House if they felt there were issues they wished to draw to the attention of the House. Although my noble friend Lord Beamish is the chair who sits in this House, there will be a senior Member from the House of Commons who would also be able to answer to the Commons on any issue. So the noble Viscount is right, but the spirit of his amendment is met—though obviously that is for him to make a judgment on.
Amendment 454 had support across the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked for proscription orders to include one single organisation at a time. Historically, proscription orders have come in groups on many occasions. At the beginning of 2001, some 20 groups were proscribed in one order that took effect under the first statutory instrument made under that order. Four more organisations were proscribed on 1 November 2002, 15 were prescribed on 14 October 2005, and so on. In the interests of parliamentary time and the speed and flexibility needed to put those orders down, that was the case then and it was the case when we tabled the order with three organisations in June and July last year in this House and, at the same time, in the House of Commons. Security issues sometimes require a speedy response, and those issues were dealt with in that way for that reason.
I will give my noble friend one more reason, which she may want to reflect on. There is a threshold for proscription under the 2000 Act. Whether noble Lords like it or not, the decision of the Government was that the three organisations bundled together in the debate in July of last year had all met that threshold. I was available, as was the Security Minister in the House of Commons, to answer questions about each and all those organisations. The advice from the security services and officials, and ministerial examination and judgment of that advice, was that all those organisations crossed the threshold. Individuals might have wanted to vote against each one individually, but if they had, they would have been voting against exactly the same principle in each case—that the organisation had crossed the threshold.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister as always for his patience, fortitude and engagement but, with respect, the historical precedent does not answer the constitutional question: would it not be better for Parliament to have an up-and-down vote? Given that Parliament has already decided that it has a role in approving these proscriptions, would it not be a more meaningful approval if it was one organisation per order? Multiple orders can be drafted and signed on the same day. I say this having worked as a Home Office lawyer, including on terrorism matters.
Finally, I say to my noble friend, who I respect so much: this is not about him and it is not about the current Home Secretary. This is about the future and about the checks and balances that noble Lords opposite spoke about so passionately.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I just say to her that the fact that there were three organisations bundled together in July last year did not stop a significant number of Members of Parliament, nor a significant number of Peers, voting against the order. They may have voted against it because they did not like Palestine Action, but I put to my noble friend again that Palestine Action had crossed exactly the same threshold as the two other organisations in that order. The judgment is not a judgment about Palestine Action. It is a judgment about the intents of Palestine Action, in line with the intents of the other two organisations in that order, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to, and which gave an explanation of their actions.
I was accountable at this Dispatch Box to say that those three organisations had crossed the threshold. Here was an order that we put together for speed and efficiency—accept my logic or do not. Both Houses accepted the logic. Some people voted against, maybe because of Palestine Action, but in voting against Palestine Action the logic was that they were voting against exactly the same tests that had been put against the other two organisations. That is the point. I give way.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, the procedure that he has described involves an executive decision that the organisations had crossed the threshold and an executive decision that they ought to be proscribed. That is not a parliamentary decision; far from it. If you are going to give Members of Parliament a meaningful vote, they have to have an opportunity to express a view on each of those proscriptions. That is the first question.
The second question is rather simpler. We have a parliamentary service of unparalleled quality. It would not be beyond the wit of that service, or generally, to devise a system of degrouping whereby, if either one or a number of MPs or Peers wanted the orders to be drawn up separately, they could be drawn up separately. If everybody was content that a bundle of 24, 15 or three orders could be dealt with together, they could be dealt with together. That would involve minimal consultation and a slight procedural adjustment, but it would involve the importation of fairness and good sense into a procedure.
Certainly, those people I know who voted against the proscription of the three had nothing against the proscription of the other two but were concerned that they were being told they had to vote against all three if they wished to argue against the proscription of the Palestine Action group. I ask the Minister to accept that that is unfair and a denial of parliamentary democracy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I give way also to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
Maybe the Minister can take all the questions in one go. The threshold may be the same, but there are three separate decisions and each decision is based on different evidence. We are dealing analytically with three distinct decisions, and that is the reason why there should be three different orders.
I suspect that the historical examples to which the Minister referred—I am not certain; perhaps he can explain—were cases in which all the various organisations were in the same context, whether it was organisations related to Afghanistan, ISIS or al-Qaeda. What we had in the case of Palestine Action was the lumping together of very different organisations: a British extreme movement and two white supremacist Russian movements. They have nothing to do with each other, and the evidence is different. Does the Minister accept that, in those circumstances in particular, where we are dealing with very different decisions based on different evidence, there should be an order per organisation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, have made fair and reasonable points. We group them for speed and efficiency, and historically they have been grouped because we want to clear a number of proscription orders at the same time. However, I put this point on the table for the Committee: if, in the light of the advice of the security services of officials, ministerial interrogation of that and, now, the added locus of the Intelligence and Security Committee having sight of and being able to be briefed on those orders, we brought three orders into one order, the threshold remains the same, and that threshold will have been crossed by those organisations. It might be that its members have a sympathy for the Palestinian cause rather than the Russian nationalist cause, but the threshold decided by ministerial jurisdiction, on advice from officials and the security services, is the same: they have crossed the threshold of the 2000 Act for a terrorist organisation. Making them separate orders would still mean that Members of both Houses would have to vote and say, “We do not accept that they have crossed the threshold”. That is a different decision.
I am conscious of time. Those points have been made. I hope I have put the Government’s case with the response I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and with my “take it or leave it” explanation of the points on disambiguation of the orders. Members can reflect on it. In the meantime, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the Committee wants to make progress, so I will be brief. I hope the Minister realises that we are not revolutionaries here; we are all parliamentarians. He refers to the threshold, but the truth is that Parliament never knows the detailed reasons. It is because we do not know the detailed reasons that we want to involve the ISC to a greater extent than the Minister has suggested. I would like to push him to say that there will be a report whenever possible, more than just a statement from the chairman.
As to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it is difficult to see any disadvantage to what she suggests. All in or all out is not a good way forward. The Minister talks about efficiency and speed, in his charming way. However, the truth is that we could lay three orders in one day, each with a separate object; that would be a proper way forward. That said, with your Lordships’ permission, I withdraw Amendment 449.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Prevention and investigation measures: online information(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (terrorism prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”. (3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(4) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.(5) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the National Security Act 2023 (prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(6) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”.(7) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(8) After sub-paragraph (6)—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a measure imposed under Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 or Schedule 7 to National Security Act 2023 may include conditions relating to the inspection of an online account accessed by means of an electronic communication device the use of which is restricted under the measure.
“Threshold for offences to be considered as terrorism-related: review(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a review into what the effect would be of raising the threshold of offences which can be considered as terrorism-related offences under the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must report within nine months of its establishment.(3) Within one month of the day on which the report is published, it must be laid before Parliament, and the relevant Minister must table a motion for debate in each House on the report’s conclusions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the government to review how raising the threshold for classifying offences as terrorism-related (under the 2021 Act) has impacted sentencing. The review must be completed within a set timeframe, reported to Parliament, and debated in both Houses.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have considered this amendment while preparing for today’s debate. It calls for a review, within a timeframe, of how raising the threshold for classifying offences of terrorism related under the 2021 Act has impacted sentencing. Considering that a review is under way by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, it seems to be a waste of time to call for a review that is plainly within his terms of reference and will be within a timeframe after this Act has passed into law, so I do not propose to proceed with this amendment. I have spoken to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, about this, who share the amendment with me, and they are content to go along with me. I do not know whether the procedure is now that I simply do not move the amendment or that I withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I think the amendment has been proposed with the wording on the Marshalled List and the noble Lord has spoken to it, but he may now wish to withdraw it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Submarine Telegraph Act 1885: amendmentIn section 3(2)(a) of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 (punishment for violation of Article 2 of Convention), omit from “penal” to the second “imprisonment” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years and to a fine at level 5 on the standard scale”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence, in addition to an unlimited fine, in the light of their status as critical national infrastructure.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 454C seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine. This constitutes critical national infrastructure and we need a stronger deterrent, I believe—as do one or two others from the Back Benches who have probably been caught out by the loss of the previous amendment.
Interestingly, one of Rishi Sunak’s early successes was a pamphlet on the subject for Policy Exchange, which he wrote with Admiral James Stavridis of the US Navy, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Written in 2017, it helped to propel him into office and to his extraordinarily rapid advancement. As he said:
“While few realise it, our ability to transmit confidential information, to conduct financial transactions and to communicate internationally all depend upon a global network of physical cables lying under the sea”.
The admiral said that
“we have allowed this vital infrastructure of undersea cables to grow increasingly vulnerable”.
A severe attack by a hostile actor
“is potentially catastrophic, but even relatively limited sabotage has the potential to cause significant economic disruption and damage military communications”.
Fast forward to last year, when I took a renewed interest in the subject with the release of a report by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy. It found, as the Minister concerned said in reply to a question I asked last year, that:
“The UK has plenty of cable routes and good repair processes for business-as-usual breakages”.
However, it also found “particular vulnerabilities” around the UK’s outlying islands, military cables and the financial sector, with a small set of “high-value targets”. Onshore infrastructure was also a concern, with links to data centres creating worrying levels of concentration. All this infrastructure could also be targeted in a crisis.
It noted that there were various laws around telecommunications, notably the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885. These have low penalties—£100 for damaging a cable by culpable negligence—with only modest increases possible via secondary legislation. The report concluded that updated and
“tougher criminal liability provisions might also help”.
In response to the report in December, the Government argued that the National Security Act 2023 could be used, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but only if the activity was carried out by a foreign state or at the direction of a foreign state. Where this was not possible, it would be necessary to rely on the 1885 Act.
That Act is plainly inadequate for today’s dangerous situation. As the time is late, I would like to cut to the chase and hope that the Minister might look positively at my simple amendment in these dangerous times. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief, and I apologise for arriving a little late to the scene. The intermediate amendment before this one seemed to disappear suddenly and caught me sprinting down the corridors, so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence. I will cut most of what I was going to say, mainly because it has been so well introduced by the noble Baroness.
This is an important amendment, and I support it. These are two-way supply chains of information, and they are as important to us—perhaps more so—as any other supply chain for our national security, our economy and the basic functioning of our society. Those who wish us harm are aware of this, are experimenting with ways of disrupting and damaging these cables and are finding ways to attack even the deepest of them. The Commons debate on the report to which the noble Baroness referred pointed out that deliberate damage can be denied or made to look accidental, and that undersea cables governance falls between eight departments, seven agencies and numerous private sector actors. The need for co-ordinated updating of the legislation is clear. The Government response basically agreed with this.
To conclude, these are perilous times of escalating insecurity, and they highlight how vital yet vulnerable these cables clearly are. Wider legislation may be required in due course—although goodness knows when—but in the meantime, we should act now as legislators in this Bill to update, clarify, and deter interference with, and attack on, this vital infrastructure. I thank your Lordships again for your tolerance.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. It offers a small change to an historic Act of Parliament, but it relates to the very lifeblood of modern society: the data on which we all depend. The UK is a crucial junction box, with 64 submarine cables; 75% of transatlantic capacity goes through just two cables, landing in Cornwall.
Clearly, this Act was designed for a very different time, and the penalties are not a deterrent and have not been fully updated, despite the Act having been updated in other ways. We have no hesitation in recognising the seriousness of undersea cable sabotage, as has been spoken to already. These incidents are increasing in the grey zone conflicts, and they can have serious consequences for our everyday ways of life.
The deterrents are not in place; this Act needs to be updated. This amendment addresses a real problem. The maximum term for wilfully damaging undersea cables would be up to 15 years, coupled with “to a fine at level 5”. That would send a stronger signal. It would align more clearly with legislation that is in place to govern other critical infrastructure—national infrastructure—including undersea energy and other critical things that we depend on.
We see this amendment as serving two purposes. The first is as a sensible tidying-up measure—an interim step, I guess—to remove an obvious anachronism from a still-operating statute. Secondly, it would serve notice that we await the more comprehensive regime that is also clearly required. We see this as an interim measure and an encouragement to the Government to bring forward a more comprehensive framework to deal with this problem.
I have more of my speech but, considering the time, I will leave it at that. We feel that this is just and proportionate. There are some issues about extraterritoriality and scope, but I will leave those for another time. Generally, the Government should accept this and view it as a stepping stone towards clarifying this area of law and making sure that we have the proper penalties and security for our vital infrastructure.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling this amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also express my thanks for the diligent work of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Its report into the vulnerabilities of our undersea cables is a brilliant piece of work and makes for sobering reading.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, these are perilous times and there never has been a more important time to consider the measure proposed, given that cables are the invisible backbone of much of our economy, security and everyday life. As we have heard, they carry the vast majority of international data traffic, underpin financial transactions, connect critical services and link the UK to our international partners.
The committee’s report underlined that while the UK has plenty of cable routes and good repair processes for what it phrased as “business-as-usual breakages”, there are distinct vulnerabilities particularly where multiple cables cluster, or connect to key landing stations, and in the links servicing our outlying islands. I represented the Highlands and Islands region in the Scottish Parliament for eight years or so, and that last point is very real to me on a personal level because these are not abstract concerns. They are very real. Damage to a cable connecting the Shetland Islands in 2022 disrupted mobile, landline and payment services for days.
As we have heard, despite these vulnerabilities, the legal framework has not kept pace with the security environment. The principal instrument remains the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885. The deterrent effect of criminal sanctions matters. As the committee observed, the UK cannot simply assume that hostile actors would refrain from targeting these cables in a future crisis, and the Government have to be prepared for the reality that hostile states or proxy actors may exploit these vulnerabilities deliberately.
In conclusion, I add that increasing penalties is certainly not the only measure the Government should be taking. The threats we face are far more wide ranging than simple criminality. There is a need for a whole of government approach to protecting critical infrastructure such as submarine telecommunications—that would involve the MoD, DBT, DESNZ and the Home Office. But this amendment is a start, and I hope that the Minister will listen and take action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government take the security of our subsea cables extremely seriously. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising this issue. It is crucially important and right that it is debated and achieves the attention it deserves.
As the noble Baroness said, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recently conducted a public inquiry into the security of the UK’s subsea cables, and it shone a spotlight on this issue. Following that inquiry, in November 2025 the Government formally committed to increasing penalties for those who damage subsea cables where the activity cannot be linked to a hostile state. As the noble Baroness rightly says, where it can be linked to a hostile state, a life sentence is available through the National Security Act.
I hope that the noble Baroness, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will understand why the Government are not able to support her amendment today. I am sure she will readily agree that penalties are not the only issue here. It is essential that any strengthening of the law is done carefully and not piecemeal, with full consideration for our fishing and wider maritime sectors. Any potential changes would need to be proportionate and workable for those sectors, and that requires proper consultation.
One further aspect about the non-criminal elements of this that may reassure your Lordships’ Committee is that cable breaks happen regularly in UK waters, given the busy nature of our shallow seas. But the UK’s international connectivity is highly resilient, and we have a well-developed system of civil litigation that ensures that cable owners are reimbursed when a break occurs. I hope that, for all these reasons, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is late, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend the opposition spokesman Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with his compelling Scottish perspective.
Given the vulnerabilities that have been identified, and identified successively, most recently by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s report—which nobody is disagreeing with—it is important that something is done. The Minister rightly refers to the possibility of civil litigation. However, for something of this seriousness, given the scale of the threat that we now have in the waters around our country, that is not good enough.
I will reflect, but I hope the Government will take this away and perhaps come forward with their own amendment. That would obviously be ideal. Perhaps we can have some further discussions about how we solve this problem sooner rather than later. I note the point that the Minister made about fisheries and so on, but that feels like an excuse. I have been a Security Minister and, normally, when you have a big security issue, you try to take steps to mend matters as quickly as you can, as has been done with previous legislation. For today, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I might come back to this on Report.