Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I advise the Grand Committee, as is normal, that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—that is singularly unlikely, but that is a personal opinion—this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Report on the impact of pension market consolidation(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market.(2) The report must include an assessment of—(a) the level of market concentration among pension scheme providers, including trends in the number and size of schemes;(b) the effects of consolidation on competition, innovation, and consumer choice in the pensions market;(c) the potential barriers to entry and growth for small and medium-sized pension providers;(d) the adequacy of existing regulatory and competition safeguards in preventing anti-competitive behaviour regarding—(i) exclusivity arrangements,(ii) exit charges, and(iii) pricing structures;(e) the role of The Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority in monitoring and responding to market concentration;(f) the merits of policy or regulatory measures to support new market entrants.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of market consolidation on competition and new market entrants.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this amendment has the distinction of being in a grouping all of its own, which obviously shows how important it is. The proposed new clause in it would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on
“the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market”.
It would ensure, I hope, that Parliament and the public have transparency on how consolidation is reshaping the sector. We know that consolidation is accelerating in the pensions market and, although scale can deliver benefits—I hope—it can also raise risks: reduced competition, fewer choices for savers and further barriers for new entrants. A clear evidence base is an essential part of the solution to strike the right balance.
The report referenced in this amendment calls for information on a number of things. The first is market concentration—for instance, trends in the number and size of schemes and the level of provider dominance. The second is effects on competition and innovation: whether consolidation is driving efficiency or stifling creativity and diversity. The third is consumer choice: how member options are being affected. The fourth is barriers to entry: challenges faced by small and medium-sized providers in entering or growing in the market. The last is an assessment of whether current competition and regulatory safeguards are sufficient.
The report would also have a particular focus on exclusivity arrangements, exit charges and pricing structures that may distort the market. Furthermore, the Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority would have a role in overseeing these risks. The review would also examine potential policies or regulations to support new entrants and maintain a healthy and competitive pensions market.
To summarise, we know that consolidation must serve savers’ interests, not just the interests of the largest providers. This proposed new clause would ensure that Parliament is properly informed—it should be informed on all things, whether on this or on the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—that regulators are held to account and that future policy is based on evidence. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, well-functioning markets matter. Competition, diversity of approach and the ability for new entrants to challenge incumbents are essential if savers are to benefit over the long term. Ministers need to explain why a formal review of consolidation is resisted, given the scale of structural change this will accelerate. We are asking just for a review, and we hope the Government will not think this too much to ask for before we enter this new realm. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his Amendment 184. I am grateful to him for raising this issue, because it goes to the heart of how we ensure that pension reform delivers better outcomes for savers rather than simply neater market structures on paper. I think there is reasonably wide backing across the pensions industry for the Government’s broad objective of greater consolidation and efficiency within the defined contribution market. Many stakeholders accept, and indeed support, the proposition that increased scale, when combined with robust governance, strong investment capability and appropriate oversight, has the potential to deliver stronger long-term outcomes for members. Few would argue for fragmentation for its own sake.
However, support for consolidation is not the same as support for consolidation at any cost, or consolidation pursued without sufficient regard to its secondary effects. Well-founded concerns remain that the current design of the scale test risks it being too blunt an instrument. In particular, it does not distinguish adequately between schemes that are genuinely underperforming and those smaller or mid-sized providers that, despite operating below the proposed thresholds, none the less deliver consistently high-quality, well-governed and, in some cases, market-leading outcomes for savers. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis underlines this risk. The chart contained in paragraph 70 of the Government’s 2024 report shows no clear or consistent correlation between assets under management and gross five-year performance across large parts of the master trust and group personal pension market.
The principal scale-related concern identified appears to relate not to well-run schemes operating below the threshold but to the very smallest arrangements, in particular certain single-employer schemes where governance capacity and resilience can be more limited. That matters because consolidation in a pensions market is not a neutral process. This is not a typical consumer market. Savers are largely captive, choice is constrained, switching is rare and inertia is high. In such an environment, reductions in the number of providers can weaken competitive pressure long before anything resembling a monopoly appears. The risk is not always higher charges tomorrow but slower innovation, less responsiveness and poorer outcomes over time.
That is why this amendment is important. It would ensure that consolidation serves savers and that Parliament retains a clear grip on how the market is evolving. Small distortions in competition today—barely visible in the short term—can compound into materially worse outcomes over 30 or 40 years of saving. In a system built on long horizons, early and structured scrutiny is essential.
There is also the question of innovation. Smaller and newer providers have often been the source of advances in member engagement, digital capability, decumulation options and investment design. If consolidation raises barriers to entry through disproportionate compliance costs, restrictive exit charges or exclusivity arrangements, innovation risks being squeezed out, even where headline charges appear to fall. Efficiency gains that come at the expense of progress are a poor bargain for future retirees.
The report required by this amendment would not obstruct sensible consolidation; nor would it second-guess the direction of travel. Rather, it would provide Parliament with the evidence needed to ensure that consolidation is proportionate, targeted and genuinely in the interest of savers. It would help ensure that regulatory and competition safeguards remain fit for purpose as market structures change, and that opportunities for new high-quality entrants are not inadvertently closed off.
For these reasons, I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance. It is supportive of reform, alert to risk and grounded firmly in the long-term interests of those whose retirement security depends on the decisions we take today.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment, which would require the Government to conduct a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions sector within 12 months of the Act being passed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her remarks and her acknowledgement of the benefits of consolidation and the widespread support for it.
The fact is that consolidation is already happening across the pension landscape. The number of DC pension providers has reduced from roughly 3,700 in 2012 to about 950 schemes today. On the DB side, the number of schemes is similarly down from about 6,500 in 2012 to 4,800 in 2026, with a record number of transactions currently estimated in the buyout market. Our aim is to accelerate this trend of consolidation through the DC scale measures and DP superfunds. As I have said before, scale brings numerous benefits directed at improving member outcomes, including better governance, greater efficiency, in-house expertise and access to investment in productive markets.
I am not going to respond in detail to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on innovation and other things, because we have given them a decent canter in previous meetings in Committee, but it is absolutely essential that pension schemes remain competitive post-scale. We expect that schemes with scale will innovate and drive competition, especially, for example, in consolidating single-employer trusts. The market will evolve, as will the needs of members, and we expect that the schemes and the industry will be able to align with this.
It is absolutely right that the Bill will lead to major change in the occupational pensions market. Although I do not agree with this particular proposal, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we must understand and monitor the impact of these reforms, because the impacts of consolidation really matter. That is why a comprehensive impact assessment was produced, analysing the potential impacts of the Bill, with plans to evaluate the impact in further detail. An updated version of the impact assessment was published as the Bill entered this House; crucially, it included further details of our ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans, including critical success factors and collaboration across departments and regulators.
We have provided the market with clarity on our approach so that changes can be put into effect, but we need to allow time to assess and evaluate the impacts following full implementation. We will assess the overall impacts over an appropriate timeframe, given that the full effects of consolidation will be after the Bill has been implemented.
As I have mentioned before, we published a pensions road map, which clearly sets out when we aim for each measure to come into force. The fact is that many of the regulations to be made under the Bill will not have been made or brought into force within a year of the Bill becoming an Act. Any review at that point could be only very partial. However, the Government are committed to strong monitoring and evaluation of this policy, especially of its impact on members. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is absolutely right to point to the crucial role of the Pensions Regulator and the CMA. They are best placed, in the first instance, to monitor the impacts of consolidation as part of their respective statutory functions, including an analysis of emerging trends. The Pensions Regulator, for example, will play a key role in monitoring the impact of consolidation on the trust-based DC pensions market via its value-for-money framework.
I can therefore assure the Committee that we will keep this area under review, consistent with our stated policy aims for the sector and for good member outcomes. We will also continue to monitor our working arrangements with the regulators; this includes their ongoing monitoring of the pensions industry. We will submit a memorandum to the Work and Pensions Select Committee with a preliminary analysis of how the Act has worked three to five years following Royal Assent. The committee may then decide to conduct a fuller inquiry into the Act, consistent with standard practice, as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation.
Given the above, a separate government report risks duplicating work while putting an undue burden on all those involved. If issues are identified by regulators before the Government submit a post-legislative memorandum, and there is a need for government action, then an evidence-based response can be taken. I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and I thank him for raising this debate. However, I hope that he feels reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that; it gives me some reassurance, and I am always happy to say when that happens. The aim of the amendment is to improve the Bill, not to undermine it. Some of the things that the Minister has suggested may happen are already happening. When figures are quoted quickly—such as 950 schemes of one sort and 4,826 of the other—the numbers do not seem so large, but they are pretty substantial in terms of those impacted.
We are worried about the impact of consolidation. I rather get the impression that the Minister is aware that there could be problems that need to be reviewed as we go along, and we will need time to assess what is happening. I take cognisance of the Minister’s reassurances: they take us along the same path as I am suggesting. We will have time, obviously, to review what is happening as time progresses. In the light of that, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that the pension compensation system and the safety net it offers need to work harder for members. Payments from the Pension Protection Fund, the PPF, and the Financial Assistance Scheme, FAS, based on pensions built up before 1997, do not get uprated with inflation—pre-1997 indexation. Over time, they have lost a significant amount of their value in real terms. I am therefore particularly pleased to introduce Clauses 108 to 110, which together provide for pre-1997 indexation in the PPF and FAS, and extend this provision to members covered by the Northern Ireland legislation.
Clause 108 amends the relevant provisions in the Pensions Act 2004 and the Pensions Act 2008. It introduces increases on compensation payments from the PPF that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. These will be CPI-linked and capped at 2.5%, and will apply prospectively to payments for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. Clause 109 makes equivalent amendments to the relevant Northern Ireland provisions, in the same way that Clause 108 does to GB legislation. This will ensure that PPF members covered by Northern Ireland legislation are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. Clause 110 amends the relevant FAS regulations to introduce increases on compensation payments from the FAS that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. As with the other clauses, these increases will be CPI-linked, capped at 2.5% and applied prospectively for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. We expect that first payments will be made to members whose former scheme provided for increases from January 2027.
Some affected members only had annual pre-1997 increases within their scheme due to the guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP, part of their pension. There is a statutory requirement for pension schemes annually to uplift any GMPs earned between April 1988 and April 1997. As such, PPF and FAS members who had only a post-1998 GMP will also receive increases on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation payment. That is because the PPF is not legally required to separately identify GMPs when a scheme transfers to the PPF or qualifies for FAS.
We will therefore calculate a standardised percentage amount for PPF members to ensure that those who had this legal requirement for increases do not miss out. That will be done via regulations, and careful consideration will be given to this standardised approach. The Secretary of State will make the equivalent determination for FAS. Clauses 108 and 109 also give the PPF board the same discretion to adjust the percentage rate of pre-1997 indexation as it currently has for post-1997 increases.
These reforms bring a step change that will make a meaningful difference to affected PPF and FAS members. Incomes will be boosted by an average of around £400 for PPF members and around £300 for FAS members per year after the first five years. The pension compensation system will now offer a stronger safety net for members who, up until now, had lost out on pre-1997 inflation protection following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
We have tabled eight minor and technical government amendments that amend the relevant provisions in the PPF legislation, including the Northern Ireland legislation and the relevant FAS regulations. These are to ensure that the pre-1997 increases in the PPF and FAS are implemented as intended and that affected members are able to receive the appropriate increases.
These amendments apply where an eligible scheme operated with more than one benefit structure. For example, a scheme may have paid increases on pensions built up before 6 April 1997 for one group of members but for another group the scheme may have paid increases only on GMPs built up on or after 6 April 1988. As the provisions were originally drafted, the latter group would not have had an entitlement to pre-1997 increases from the PPF or FAS. We want that group of members to receive indexation on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation, and these amendments remedy the position.
I will comment on the other amendments in the group when I respond at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I will speak to my Amendment 203ZB. I thank my noble friend for the decision in the Budget to grant future increases. That is very much to be welcomed. As for the technical difficulties, I would love an opportunity to start discussing GMPs and even better if we got on to the anti-franking rules, but that is not the issue that I wish to raise today. As I have not moved the lead amendment, I have only 10 minutes.
In working out what I had to say, I realised that there are three groups dealing with pre-1997 increases: this group, group 2, the next group, group 3, where the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will move her amendment, and group 5, where at last I get 15 minutes as the mover of the amendment. There are issues that run through all three groups. That is not to downplay the importance of group 4 and the AWE proposals. There are intertwined issues here. There is the reduction in real terms of members’ benefits since they came into payment and the introduction of future increases. There is also the issue that is the subject of my amendment in group 2 and of the amendments in group 3, which is the losses that have been incurred by pre-1997 pensioners.
I am glad that the Minister said that those pensioners have lost out. I am glad that we have that common ground: they have lost out. Then there is the issue of pre-1997 benefits for schemes that are still active. Whether or not they are open to new members, they have pensioners and their legal entitlements to pre-1997 benefits differ from those post-1997. There are common themes there and I suspect that my remarks on all three groups could be put together and make a more coherent whole. In particular, there is a big issue about inflation protection for pre-1997. It is all about pre-1997. What was the feeling about inflation protection back in those days when it was under discussion? Even though it applies to this group, I am going to save that for group 3, when I shall move my Amendment 203.
I am not going to address in this group, although this is probably the most important point of all, the impact that this has had on the individuals concerned. I have had a substantial postbag, most of it by email, pointing out the problems that they have faced. I am not going to focus on that now because I have a limited amount of time, but to me it is the crucial point.
I shall start with the PPF and then come to the FAS in a moment. The principle has been established that PPF pensioners deserve increases in their pensions in respect of pre-1997 service. The Government agree with that principle but they are only going to implement it for the future. The same principle should apply to the past as to the future. Why should they be entitled to increases in the future if they are not entitled to exactly similar increases for the past? I am not talking about retrospection. This amendment has nothing to do with retrospection; it just says that these pensioners deserve pensions now in real terms that are the same in monetary value as they were when they came into payment.
The only reason why one would make a distinction between the increases in the future and making good the increases that have been lost in the past is the cost. I cannot think of any other plausible reason. There is no difference between them in terms of justice; it is simply about the cost. However, we know, because the PPF has given us the figures, that that does not apply here. The money is in the PPF that can afford these increases. It has a significant and growing excess of assets over liabilities and, because of that, the levy is being suspended. The employer providing these schemes is gaining the benefit—in effect, a sort of refund of the surplus that has been built up. Well, fair enough, they have paid for it, but so have the members and they are entitled to the increase. Whatever they had when their pensions came into payment should be increased from January 2027 to allow for what they would have got in respect of post-1997 benefits. That is clear and I hope that the Government will accept the point.
Then we come on to the FAS. The big difference between the PPF and the FAS is that the FAS is funded out of general taxation. However, let us be clear why the FAS is there: it is because Governments of both parties failed to provide the protection that they were required to give under European law, in the face of the fantastic campaign that was run on behalf of the pensioners of schemes that became insolvent—and employers that became insolvent—prior to the implementation of the PPF. That is the only reason why they are in the FAS. It was the Government’s failure; it was not their failure. Why should they lose out? Governments failed to provide them with protection. They only introduced the PPF from 2005, but the people who lost their pensions prior to that date are just as entitled. The Government gave in because of the fantastic campaign, as I say, but also because of the threat of further legal action at the European court that they knew they would lose. To make a distinction between FAS members and PPF is totally unfair and unreasonable.
There will be a cost and, because it is the FAS, it will fall on the taxpayers, but one principle is clear: where the Government have a debt to make good something that they have got wrong, they cannot excuse themselves from that debt by saying, “Sorry, we don’t quite have the money”. They should pay up. It is quite clear that the same treatment should be afforded to the FAS members as to the PPF members.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I shall also address the government amendments in this group. I have signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 203, which we will come to later, recognising that he has professional expertise far greater than mine in dealing with these matters and believing that he comes to these issues, as I am certain he does, from a position of recognising that one group of workers in particular—those of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff—were extremely badly treated over 20 years ago, about which I spoke earlier in our deliberations.
I listened with interest and concern to the explanation given by the Minister for introducing these amendments, and I am far from certain as to whether, when enacted, the discretion to which she referred will give former employees of Allied Steel and Wire any of the redress which they seek for the pension loss they suffered with regard to their pre-1997 employment. Are we today recognising the fairness of their claim but not providing any vehicle by which it can, in fact, be met? That is my fear.
In Committee in the other place, my Plaid Cymru colleague, Ann Davies MP, introduced two amendments to provide indexation for compensation under FAS and the PPF to cover both pre-1997 and post-1997 service, and to reimburse members for the annual increase they should have received. The Government rejected those amendments, saying they would not work. Ann Davies MP came back on Report proposing a new clause to provide indexation. The Government rejected that clause so, in considering these and possibly later amendments, I ask the Minister whether their combined effect will do anything at all to give the pre-1997 pensions full indexation and not limit them to the 2.5% cap which Ministers supported in the other place? Will they do anything to reimburse those members for the annual increases which they never received?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I support all his remarks, especially on the only excuse for not recognising that people need pre-1997 indexation going forward. There is a wrong that is being corrected; therefore, that wrong probably applies even more to benefits from the past. One of the reasons why I say “even more so” is because the members who have the most pre-1997 accrual are the oldest—by definition, they must be. They have much less time left to live and many of them have, sadly, already passed away. Therefore, to right this wrong by promising people money in future that they may never see, or will see almost none of, does not seem a solid way of righting a wrong.
I understand—I will go through this in more detail in the next group—that the Financial Assistance Scheme, for example, is supposedly funded by public money, while the PPF itself and employer contributions, in the form of the levy, provides the money for PPF compensation, but £2 billion from the scheme was transferred to the public purse. Thankfully, when we were trying to improve the Financial Assistance Scheme in 2005, Andrew Young recommended stopping annuity purchase, which had been happening and, unfortunately, transferred much of the money to insurers rather than putting it towards the Government to pay out over time. Nevertheless, the Financial Assistance Scheme itself represents some of the biggest losers and the ones with the most pre-1997 accrual.
Therefore, I urge the Government to recognise that the cost of the requirements in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are easily affordable from the PPF reserve—£14.5 billion is available. The cost estimate for this retrospective addition to the pre-1997 accruals that were not paid in terms of inflation uplifts could be around £500 million out of the £14.5 billion, depending on how the arrears are paid. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could confirm some of the Government’s estimates for what this would be; I have looked at the PPF’s estimates.
I add that the Financial Assistance Scheme does not only help those who affected by insolvency. The European court case was about insolvency, but the MFR protected employers who just wanted to walk away from their schemes before the law changed. Paying in only the MFR was hopelessly inadequate to afford the pensions. There was a brilliant campaign by the unions that went to the European court, and the Government had a great fear that they would lose that. Prior to that, we had an appeal by the workers of Allied Steel and Wire and many of the other schemes to the Pensions Ombudsman, who found in their favour and against the Government, and to the Public Accounts Select Committee. Then we had to go to the High Court, taking a case against the Government, and we won. We also went to the Court of Appeal, taking a case against the Government, and we won on behalf of those whose schemes had failed, whether the employers were insolvent or not, which means that they are all now included.
Even so, the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF have not recognised the pre-1997 inflation losses that have left many of these members with half their pension, or even less in some cases. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I welcome it, and I am very grateful to the Minister for the recognition that we need to do something—there may be further consideration of that; we will come back to it in subsequent groups—to recompense for the losses of the past.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I wish only to say that I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the lengthy exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I give them my support.
This group deals with technical amendments in the main, but they go to a question of basic fairness for pensioners whose schemes have failed. There are eight amendments in the Minister’s name, which shows that Bills can be amended, because the Government are amending their own Bill. Their amendments are no less important than those proposed on this side of the Room or those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the other.
The Government have accepted the principle of restoring inflation protection for pre-1997 service in the PPF and the FAS. These amendments ensure that the policy operates as intended, covering cases where the schemes technically add indexation rules that did not apply to all pre-1997 service.
The concern here is consistency and completeness. As has been said by other speakers, without these clarifications, some pensions will fall through the cracks due to historic scheme design quirks, rather than any distinction of principle. Any schemes that were and will be proposed will have quirks that are going to be found out in due course. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government’s intention is to deliver equal treatment for those with equivalent service histories and that no group will be excluded because of technical anomalies.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will mainly speak to and concentre on the government amendments in this group. I start by thanking the Minister for setting them out so clearly. We welcome the additional clarity that they provide.
In particular, these amendments ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF payments are treated consistently where a pension scheme formally required pre-1997 indexation but where that requirement did not in fact apply to the specific pre-1997 service for which financial assistance is being paid. Put simply, this is a technical clarification to ensure that indexation under the FAS reflects a member’s actual scheme entitlement, even where a scheme nominally provided for pre-1997 indexation but did not apply it to the service being compensated. We believe that this is a useful and sensible point of clarification—one that helps to ensure that the system operates as it should do.
However, I would be grateful if, when she closes, the Minister could confirm that it is now the Government’s view that these amendments are sufficient to close what may previously have been a gap in the original drafting. In particular, can she confirm that the Government are satisfied that these changes are enough to avoid confusion, to avoid the risk of legal challenge and to ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme remains, in essence, what it should be—a safety net—rather than becoming an unintended upgrade?
I want also to make a broader process point, because these changes emerged relatively late in proceedings in the other place. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the relevant stakeholders have been properly consulted and that the Government do not anticipate the need for further amendments on this issue in the Commons—or, indeed, as the Bill continues to go through Parliament. The Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell, has previously stated that this change will affect around 250,000 members of the PPF, increasing their pension payments by an average of around £400 a year. The Minister cited that figure in her opening remarks, but is that still the Government’s firm and final assessment of the scale and impact of this measure? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for us.
I also note the comments made by Sara Protheroe, the PPF’s chief customer officer, who said:
“While implementing this change will be no small task”—
that is probably an understatement—the PPF is
“fully committed to delivering this at the earliest opportunity if and when it becomes law”.
That welcome commitment raises an important practical question for the Government, does it not? What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resources that might be required? What support will be provided to the PPF to ensure that delivery can take place smoothly and without delay? Have the Government assessed whether additional resources, which could come via capacity or funding, will be required to implement this change effectively? If so, how do they intend to provide that support?
Regarding Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I will have more to say in subsequent groups. As the noble Lord said, there are amendments on the FAS and PPF in three different groups today. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I delay my brief comments. I also listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It is best that I make comments in later groups.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his amendment and I look forward to the subsequent instalments of his reflections on these important areas. The Government’s reforms are a significant step forward in making the compensation system and its safety net better for members, but I recognise that it does not go as far as some affected members, or indeed some noble Lords, would want.
We recognise the impact that the issue of pre-1997 indexation has had on affected PPF and FAS members. My colleague, the Pensions Minister, has met with many representatives and has heard at first hand the impact on them. I have also had representations coming into my inbox and I understand the position of those who have contacted me. I recognise the intention behind Amendment 203ZB from my noble friend Lord Davies.
This amendment would increase the pension on which indexation is calculated in respect of PPF and FAS members’ compensation. The PPF has fully assessed the impact of retrospection and arrears. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that the cost of providing prospective and fully retrospective indexation and arrears—in line with CPI capped at 2.5% for members whose original schemes provided for these increases—is significant, totalling around £5.6 billion: £3.9 billion for the PPF and between £1 billion and £1.7 billion for FAS. If I have understood my noble friend’s amendment correctly, it would have the effect of increasing the baseline compensation paid to all PPF and FAS members, irrespective of whether their original scheme provided for 1997 increases. This would further increase the costs to the PPF and FAS.
The reforms put forward by the Government offer targeted support and introduce changes to indexation to compensation payments prospectively. The Government’s proposal to introduce pre-1997 indexation in the PPF will reduce the PPF reserve by £1.2 billion and cost around £0.3 billion to £0.6 billion for FAS, totalling £1.8 billion over the lifetime of both schemes. This is a significant shift, reflecting the value of the increases to members’ compensation payments.
The PPF reserve protects current and future members, as well as underwriting future claims across the almost £1 trillion DB system. Prudent management of the reserve is needed to ensure that the security it provides for its members, and the DB pension universe, is not compromised. In introducing this change, the Government had to strike a balance of interests for all parties—including eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk—against the backdrop of a tight fiscal envelope. We believe that our reform achieves the right balance. Any further reduction of the reserve increases the risk to members and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk.
While the PPF has confirmed that the Government’s proposal does not affect its plan to switch off the levy, going beyond our proposal increases the possibility of the PPF needing to return to levy payers in the future. As it stands, this is a win for members and for those businesses. Any changes to compensation levels in the PPF and the taxpayer-funded FAS have significant implications for the public finances. Increases to PPF liabilities affect the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, because the present value of these liabilities change annually, which is counted as a cost in the public finances. Any increases to payments from FAS come at a direct cost to the taxpayer. This is why we are concerned about the risks of going further, as well as the risks to the PPF that I have described.
The bottom line is that the PPF and FAS are compensation schemes: they were never designed to fully replace members’ pensions. Members are in a better financial situation than they would have been before these compensation schemes were established. Our changes to the pension compensation system will offer a stronger safety net for members who, until now, had lost out on pre-1997 compensation increases following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked me about the solidity of the amendments and whether they would be enough to avoid legal challenge. If a legal challenge were to be brought forward, the Government consider they can successfully defend any such challenge. I hope that reassures him.
We understand that members will want to have a conversation quickly, and the PPF has rightly said that it would like to do it as soon as is practicable, but we have concluded that the earliest opportunity to provide pre-1997 increases to PPF and FAS members is January 2027, because implementation will require the PPF to identify eligible members in order to implement the changes. That is the first possible opportunity to uplift members’ payments pending the appropriate parliamentary processes. We will do it when and as soon as it can be done, but we have to be sensible about that.
I was asked how many members would benefit. I said that more than 250,000 PPF and FAS members are set to benefit from this change. Up to 90,000 may not benefit, although we know that includes a number of people who will benefit where they had post-1988 GMPs, and we are working with the PPF to identify the number of members who had post-1988 GMPs. Some 85,000 PPF and FAS members do not have any pre-1997 service, so they do not fall within the scope of this change.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is going to ask about Allied Steel and Wire. The Minister for Pensions has met Financial Assistance Scheme members, including former Allied Steel and Wire workers whose scheme qualified for FAS, and he has heard first hand of the experience of those members. I am happy to confirm that former members of Allied Steel and Wire will benefit from the Government’s proposals of prospective legislation. If that is the question the noble Lord was going to ask, I hope that is enough to satisfy him.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am very grateful and I hope that the benefit will be substantial.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Just for clarity, the benefit will be exactly as I described in the Government’s amendments—which obviously is incredibly generous but, just to be clear, that is the benefit under question. In the light of this, I am grateful to my noble friend and all noble Lords, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(2A) After paragraph 28, insert—“Lump sum compensation
28A (1) In all cases which qualify for an increase in periodic compensation under paragraph 28(2A) to (2I), the person may also qualify for a lump sum payment or payments, the amount of which must be—(a) related to the loss of inflation protection on pre-1997 pension benefits, and(b) paid by the Pension Protection Fund out of excess reserves,in recognition of the years of pension increases that were unpaid since the failure of the pension scheme.(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about lump sum payments under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make provision for lump sum payments from the Pension Protection Fund to persons who qualify for an increase in periodic compensation for pre-1997 service to compensate for unpaid increases in the years since the failure of the pension scheme.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are designed to give the Government another way of recognising the injustice that has occurred, which their very welcome amendments recognise for members who have lost their pre-1997 inflation protection. I am trying, through this route, to give the Government a way of increasing the amounts paid to people who have lost out on pre-1997 indexation in the past without the striking costs that the Minister suggested would be involved in retrospection and arrears for everybody in the PPF and the Financial Assistance Scheme.
The method by which this could be achieved is to offer lump-sum payments which do not increase the base cost of the pension but do recognise the losses suffered in the past. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues might be able to look favourably on this suggestion, which is another way in which the Government could put right what they have already recognised is a serious wrong.
If my amendments are accepted, the Pension Protection Fund reserve could be used alongside the Government’s welcome Amendments 186 and so on in the previous group. For anyone who is going to receive the prospective inflation protection in the future, the PPF reserve will or could be used to pay a lump sum to be determined related to the losses that they have suffered. That will be a one-off, or it could be over two or three years if so desired, to recognise the past problem to help the oldest people in a practical way and to ensure that there is some modicum of fairness, particularly for those who have the most pre-1997 accrual, who, as I have said, are the oldest.
My Amendment 203ZA is the same proposal for the Financial Assistance Scheme, but subsection (3) of my proposed new clause would allow specification, in consultation with the Pension Protection Fund, as to how this will be funded. Obviously, there is a significant reserve in the Pension Protection Fund. It has written to members, suggesting that there is affordability, and the ability to pay for some element of retrospection—again, to be determined. By the way, the Minister suggested that people would get what they paid for but, of course, with a 2.5% cap on CPI increases, many of them would have paid 5% going forward. So, it is not full retrospection or prospective protection for pre-1997.
I know that the Minister is proud of what the Government are doing, and I welcome it too, but her words that it does not go as far as some affected members would want are absolutely correct. I would say that it does not go as far as some affected members deserve, in the course of an argument about fairness and justice.
Are there any government estimates for the cost of these lump-sum payments, either one-off or spread over two or three years? It is probably easier administratively to make it a one-off, so that only one payment is required. That would also need to be protected in the same way that the new payment in other schemes is protected in terms of the tax system, so that it is not treated as an income in that particular year. If the Government were minded and able to accept the principle of recognising the past in a different way from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which I also support if that were possible, it would not add to the long-term costs of running the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme. It will be a one-off recognition of the past and the future liabilities would be based on the pension as proposed now.
Do the Government have estimates for any possible size of payment that would be acceptable, so that we could then work backwards to finding a lump sum that could be paid and afforded out of the PPF’s obviously significant reserve? There is far more money than is required; it is just sitting there, whereas these pensioners really need the pensions that they paid for and are getting nowhere near. I hope the Minister might be able to help, or I am happy to meet and see whether we can work through some figures that might be acceptable as a way forward to recognise the past and satisfy a number of the people who are seriously ill and may not live to next April or much beyond it and feel so aggrieved—having campaigned with me for years to help people, get the PPF started and improve the Financial Assistance Scheme—that they are not getting the recognition that younger people who are benefiting from their hard work will get. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I offer my support for the amendment moved and the other amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She suggested that, in some ways, her amendments are more important than mine. I agree and I will come on to why that is so in a moment. I recognise the importance of the government amendments but, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, we have to recognise the impact of the lack of past increases on those affected.
Retrospection has been mentioned. It is a complete red herring. By its nature, any form of compensation will be retrospective. We are not going to compensate people for what happens in the future. The compensation being paid all too slowly to the Post Office managers is retrospective. The money being paid to the infected blood victims is retrospective, but we still have to pay. “Retrospection” is not a relevant word in this context. We are clear, and we all agree, that these people have lost out, to use the words of my noble friend the Minister, so retrospection is a red herring.
My noble friend the Minister also mentioned the significant impact on public finances. That is true because it has been defined in that way, but we are setting the rules. We are not being subjected to rules imposed by outside interests. If the Treasury does not have the wit or ingenuity to adjust the rules in a way that would allow for these payments from the PPF, which, in reality, would have no impact whatsoever on public expenditure, those who have been affected by the lack of increases will draw their own conclusions as to what the Government really want to do. My noble friend also said that this is a compensation scheme and that it was never designed to offer full redress. Well, that is what we are debating; it is exactly what we are saying is wrong and should be rectified.
The point that I wish to emphasise in this section is the need for urgency. That is why this amendment is the important one. To be brutal, we are dealing with a declining population. It has been estimated that more than 5,000 pensioners with pre-1997 rights are dying each year. We have to take action. Even my amendment, which I proposed to bring the pension up to its current real value, does not address the issue for these people because many of them will not be here. Compensation via lump-sum payments, along the lines suggested in these amendments, are, I believe, the way in which this problem should be addressed. I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the amendments. I emphasise that they look at how to do this by lump-sum payments, rather than by increasing pensions. That is important. It is what we in my profession used to call “creative accountancy”. It seeks to achieve a result by lump sums, more or less off the Government’s balance sheet. There has been some blending of the funds in the past. It is a way of doing it in a creative accountancy way, largely getting rid of the problem by lump-sum payments. I hope that the Government will look at this in a creative way in order to provide some justice without incurring an ongoing debt.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 187A, 188A, 189A and 203ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has long been a formidable and principled advocate for pension savers and much of the Committee will be sympathetic to the underlying concerns that she raised in her remarks. In particular, her consistent focus on member protection, governance and long-term security has materially shaped the debate on pensions policy over many years—and rightly so.
However—the Committee might expect me to say this—while I share the noble Baroness’s objectives, I am not persuaded that the amendments, as drafted, strike the right balance in this instance. I listened carefully to her remarks and her constructive suggestions as to how such payments could be made in the form of lump sums, whether through several lump sums or another way. As ever, she is constructive and positive, and I accept that. These amendments would use the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make retrospective lump-sum payments to compensate for unpaid historical indexation. We think that that would represent a significant shift in principle.
I listened carefully, as I always do, to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who called retrospection a red herring. I was not absolutely sure what he meant by that. As I see it, retrospection is just that: retrospection. I think that it describes the payments in the way that it is meant to do. However, the PPF was designed as a forward-looking safety net, not as a mechanism for reopening past outcomes or making retrospective compensation payments. The Minister, to be fair to her, made this clear in her closing remarks in previous groups.
Such an approach would raise serious concerns about cost, complexity and consistency. Although we are somewhat clearer about costs from the helpful remarks from the Minister in the previous group, I am still uncertain—as, I think, other Members of the Committee are—about what the overall costs would be and what the impact would be on the levy and on other contributors. That uncertainty makes me cautious about supporting these amendments, which risk turning a clearly defined insurance mechanism into an open-ended compensation scheme. I suspect that the Minister—without wanting to steal her thunder—may take a similar view in her response, judging from her remarks in the previous group.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord just said that this would impact on the levy, but if there is a one-off payment, it would not affect the scheme going forward. Therefore, it should not impact the levy at all; it is a lump-sum payment rather than an increase in the base pension payable going forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As ever, that is a very helpful clarification, but I will leave it up to the Minister to answer that. I stick with my view that we are not persuaded by these amendments. Perhaps there is more debate to be had. I have said all that I need to say; I am afraid that I am unable to support these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am afraid the noble Viscount has given a spoiler regarding my response, because I articulated many of the arguments on this in the previous group in response to my noble friend Lord Davies.
The Government recognise that pre-1997 indexation is an important issue for affected PPF and FAS members. That is why we listened and took the action that we did. The changes proposed by Amendments 186A, 187A, 188A and 189A would, essentially, award payments of arrears for PPF and FAS members who have missed out on pre-1997 increases up to now. As the noble Baroness described, that would mean a one-off lump-sum payment to be made from the PPF reserve. Amendment 203ZA would require the Secretary of State to determine how those additional payments would be funded in FAS.
I acknowledge the impact on members. This has been a long-running issue and, for reasons that noble Lords have clearly articulated, members will want to see their increases quickly now that we have made a decision to act. As I said, we expect that the first payments will be made to eligible PPF and FAS members in January 2027, which is the earliest possible opportunity to do so, and we are working closely with the PPF on implementing that. I recognise that prospective increases do not restore the erosion of the real-terms value of members’ retirement incomes. However, the Government’s reforms will make a meaningful difference to affected members while balancing the impact on levy payers who support the PPF, taxpayers who pay for FAS and affordability for the Government.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, any payment that comes out of the PPF reserve will reduce the size of that reserve and therefore, in our judgment, must make it more likely that there may be a need for a levy to be reintroduced at some point. I shall come back to the arguments in a moment, as I said to my noble friend, but I have noted the importance of responsible management of the PPF reserve following the introduction of our reforms. The noble Baroness’s proposal—creative though it is, and I acknowledge that—would clearly also reduce the reserve. Although the reserve is forecast to grow, without a really substantive PPF levy the PPF will depend on its reserves and its investment returns to manage the risks from existing liabilities and future claims across the £1 trillion DB system.
Historically, the PPF has supported nearly £10 billion in claims, funded in part by the amount collected through levies. Without future levies, the reserve has to cover upcoming claims. The reserve offers protection against future risks, such as new claims and longevity risks, and, as I have said, avoids the need for a significant levy reintroduction. I also noted the significant public finance implications of changes in my earlier remarks.
The Government have not made an assessment of the noble Baroness’s proposal because we considered carefully what we thought it was appropriate to do. We worked with the PPF and fully considered the broader context of introducing pre-1997 indexation in both the PPF and FAS. In the end, it is the responsibility of the Government to strike an affordable balance of interest between all parties. We believe our reform achieves that. This measure is a fundamental shift in the level of protection afforded by the PPF and FAS to their members, but we think that is right and the appropriate balance. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank those who have supported this group, and I hope that I might be able to persuade colleagues on this side to offer their support.
I understand the Minister’s dilemma, but I have to ask: what is the PPF reserve for? It is just money sitting there, way above what is needed for the current liabilities, before you take into account new schemes that themselves will have assets attached, and the vast majority of schemes are in surplus at the moment anyway.
There was talk of the cost, complexity and consistency involved in these proposals. The cost we know, because one can design the lump-sum payments to fit the desired cost envelope. The complexity is actually far lower than the Government’s current proposals because they are a one-off payment related to past losses, which will have to be calculated anyway if one is going to do anything of this nature.
Consistency is particularly important here, otherwise we will be treating members of the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme very differently based on their age, in effect. Those who are young will get better protection. Those who are older—and need it most, I argue, because they have lost most—get little or nothing from the Government’s welcome proposals. So, at the same time as the Government are designing their forward-looking acknowledgment of the need for pre-1997 uplifts, I hope that we might be able to persuade them that, alongside that, there is an overwhelming case for some recognition of the past.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that her scheme would work the other way round, because older members will tend to have more pre-1997 service that younger members, whose pre-1997 service will be relatively limited? A scheme along the lines she proposes will have some element of generational fairness.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord. I would certainly say that there is a significant and obvious element of fairness in this proposal for lump sums to be paid. I argue that it would level the playing field, because those who have lost the most at the moment will continue to lose the most, whereas if you recognise the past losses and the forward uplifts are still being paid then you equalise, to some degree, the fairness and the losses between people of different age groups.
I hope that we can come back to this matter on Report and that we might have a meeting to discuss the potential for something of this nature to be introduced in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 to the Pensions Act 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 6 to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2A to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“Chapter 2AAWE Pension SchemeNew public pension schemes
Establishment of new public schemes and transfer of rights(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish one or more schemes (“new public schemes”) which provide for pensions or other benefits to be payable to or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the AWE Pension Scheme (“qualifying persons”).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the transfer of qualifying accrued rights to a new public scheme (without the need for any approval or consent of the trustee company or AWE PLC, or any other person, to the transfer). (3) Regulations under subsection (2) may include provision for the discharge of liabilities in respect of qualifying accrued rights that are transferred.(4) In this Chapter—“qualifying accrued rights ” means—(a) any right to future benefits under the AWE Pension Scheme which, at the qualifying time, has accrued to or in respect of a qualifying person,(b) any entitlement under the AWE Pension Scheme to the present payment of a pension or other benefit which a qualifying person has at the qualifying time, or(c) any entitlement to benefits, or right to future benefits, under the AWE Pension Scheme which a survivor of a qualifying person has at the qualifying time in respect of the qualifying person;“the qualifying time ” means the time immediately before the date specified or described in regulations.(5) For the purposes of the definition of “qualifying accrued rights”—(a) references to pensions or other benefits (including future benefits) includes money purchase benefits, and(b) references to a right include a pension credit right.(6) Regulations under subsection (4) specifying or describing a date for the purposes of the definition of “the qualifying time” may make provision for the purposes of transfers of qualifying accrued rights generally, transfers of a particular description or a particular transfer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the pension scheme of AWE PLC (a wholly owned government company) to be transferred to a new public sector pension scheme, while preserving existing rights of scheme members. It will be the first clause of a new Chapter in Part 4 of the Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 194, I shall speak also to government Amendments 195 to 202; I would welcome the Committee’s support for them.
The AWE pension scheme is a trust-based defined benefit pension scheme for current and former employees of AWE plc, the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Since 2021, AWE plc has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and this pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These proposed new clauses will allow the Government to defund the existing scheme, establishing a new central government pension scheme for its members. The assets held by the scheme will be sold, with the proceeds transferred to the Treasury. The Chancellor announced this measure in her 2025 Budget, but the principle was announced in a Commons Written Ministerial Statement on 6 July 2022.
The new scheme will be an unfunded public pension scheme. This is in accordance with wider government policy that when a financial risk sits wholly with the Government, as it does here because of the Crown guarantee, it should not hold assets to cover that liability. The taxpayer is already exposed to the risks and the liability can be managed more efficiently in the round, along with other unfunded liabilities met out of general taxation. This measure will help to ensure that liabilities are funded in the most efficient way while ensuring the long-term security of members’ benefits. I assure the Committee that these clauses protect the rights that members of the AWE pension scheme have accrued under the current scheme. Neither the terms nor the benefits will be affected. The new public scheme must make provision that is, in all material respects, at least as good as that under the AWE pension scheme.
The new clauses in Amendments 194 and 195 provide that the new scheme should be established by regulations and set out the kind of provision that may be made by these regulations and any amending regulations. Although these are fairly standard for public schemes, I assure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully how these may be relevant to this scheme. The new clause in Amendment 197 ensures that the scheme rules cannot be amended unless prescribed procedures have been followed. In most cases, the requirement is to consult. However, if the proposed amendment might adversely affect members’ rights, the regulations must prescribe additional procedures to protect the interests of members, including obtaining the consent of interested persons or their representatives.
The new clause in Amendment 198 will enable the Government to direct the disposal of the assets currently held by the pension scheme for the benefit of the Exchequer. As we expect that the bulk of the assets will be sold before the new scheme is established, regulations under this clause will ensure that the trustees’ liabilities will be met by public funds, thus ensuring that pensions in payment will not be affected. Regulations under this clause will also be able to exempt the trustee or AWE plc from any liability that might otherwise arise because they have complied with the Government’s direction. This will include the power to disapply or modify specified statutory provisions. These powers can be used only in relation to regulations made under this clause and are intended to protect the trustee. For example, we expect that we will need to disapply the scheme funding regime in relation to the scheme once the sale of the assets begins.
The new clause in Amendment 199 ensures that the transfer of the AWE pension scheme to a new public scheme will be tax neutral, meaning that no additional or unexpected tax liabilities will arise for those affected by the changes. The new clause in Amendment 200 will give the Government the power to make regulations requiring individuals or organisations to provide the information needed to establish the new public scheme, administer the scheme and transfer accrued rights. It should be noted that the Government do not expect to use these powers, as we are working with the AWE pension trustees and others to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of all members. This provision will be required only in case of non-compliance.
New Clause 201 ensures proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made under this part of the Bill, particularly those affecting the establishment and operation of the new public pension scheme and the transfer of assets. The Government are required to consult the trustee of the AWE pension scheme before making regulations to establish the new public scheme, transfer accrued rights or transfer assets and liabilities. This ensures that the interests of scheme members will be fully considered. Regulations that could adversely affect existing rights, have retrospective effect or set financial penalties are subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that significant changes are subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny. All other regulations under this part of the Bill are subject to the negative procedure, which provides flexibility while maintaining accountability. I hope that this explains the plans for the AWE pension scheme. I commend these amendments to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 194 to 202. The Government’s letter states that the liabilities of the AWE pension scheme will no longer be pre-funded, that the assets of the scheme will be sold and that scheme members will be protected in line with the approach taken to other pensions guaranteed by the Government. The proposed amendments to the Bill are said to provide the legislative framework to achieve this outcome. They would enable the creation of a new public pension scheme into which the accrued rights of AWE scheme members would be transferred. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 198 does not establish a conventional funded public sector pension scheme. Instead, it appears to create a hybrid transition mechanism which ultimately results in an unfunded public liability.
In a genuinely funded scheme, assets and liabilities move together into a continuing pension fund. The provisions break the link between members’ accrued rights and any dedicated asset backing. By contrast, a private sector defined benefit pension scheme is funded and backed by invested assets. It is governed by a statement of investment principles, which sets risk tolerance, balances growth and security, aligns investments with member liabilities and is overseen by trustees acting under a fiduciary duty to scheme members. Once members’ rights are transferred into the new public scheme, there is no guaranteed asset pool, there is no meaningful statement of investment principles and benefits are met from future public expenditure rather than from scheme assets, as the Minister explained.
The effect of this is a material change in the nature of members’ interests. Rights that were previously supported by a funded scheme, overseen by fiduciary trustees and governed by a statement of investment principles would instead rest on a statutory public sector framework. In that framework, the investment strategy and long-term funding are determined through central government processes and are therefore exposed to future fiscal and policy decisions. Although the Government’s interest in AWE plc is public in ownership terms, these provisions do not operate at a general or class level. They apply to a single named employer and to a closed and identifiable group of scheme members for whom a bespoke statutory framework is being created. This is the problem.
It is for these reasons that there remains a credible argument that the amendments are prima facie hybridising. I know about this because on Thursday 8 January I tabled my public sector amendment to the Bill, which is now Amendment 217. I was required to amend it before tabling because it named more than one specific pension scheme, as Amendments 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 202 do. Interestingly and I think unusually, Amendment 199 also deals with taxation, which is something I confess I have not seen before, but there may be a precedent. My amendment did not move members’ interests at all. It simply required a review of the affordability, sustainability and accounting treatment of public sector schemes. That stands in contrast to the far more substantive and immediate changes affected by Amendments 198 to 202. My original amendment was rejected on grounds of hybridity and I had to take out the specific scheme references. Somehow—and it feels rather suspicious—the Government’s hybrid amendment was accepted by the Public Bill Office.
I urge the Committee to reflect carefully on the nature and consequences of what is proposed and the precedent that it may set for hybridity. I invite the Minister to consider this and to consider perhaps introducing amendments to Amendments 195 to 202 or withdrawing the amendments until the implications are considered by an appropriate constitutional expert. Obviously, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why we are facing this situation at this point in time. My issue is with the hybridity rather than with the details of the AWE pension scheme, which is not a matter on which I am in any way expert.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I have one quick question to obtain reassurance, I hope, from the Minister in relation to Amendment 199 on taxation. I imagine that it is consequent on some of the problems that we had with the McCloud remedy, which required tax changes and the Treasury to intervene. The amendment uses the word “may”, which allows the Treasury to do it if it wishes. Should that not be “must”, in that what we are promising AWE is that nobody will be tax disadvantaged? I put that to the Minister and ask for some reassurance.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I have a couple of questions. I must confess that these stem from previous occasions when promises to be at least as good do not appear to have happened, as in the AEA transfer. I am a little suspicious of this, as it seems to be in the same kind of area.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have Amendment 203ZC in this group, but unfortunately the Committee has not received a copy of my amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Good. I now have it and I want to check that everyone else has it too. That is my first question dealt with.
In speaking to this amendment, the aim is to enable members of pension schemes that have gone into the PPF after their assessment period to be extracted, with regulations laid that will govern the terms on which they can be extracted. This is particularly relevant to the AEAT scheme: I know that we will come to this in later groups, with a requirement for a review of the situation. My amendment is trying to facilitate a practical resolution to the problems faced by the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. There are parallels with the Atomic Weapons Establishment or AWE scheme: employees originally had a scheme similar to and in fact derived from that of the UK AEA.
The AWE staff and their pensions were transferred to the private sector, and in 2022 the Government granted a Crown guarantee to the private company scheme. However, members of the AEA scheme were told that the scheme that they were encouraged to transfer to in 1996 would be as secure as that provided by the Atomic Energy Authority public sector scheme. This was not the case, though, because it was not offered a Treasury guarantee. It would appear that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the various options offered to those members in 1996. Indeed, they were apparently specifically told not to worry about the security of the scheme to which they transferred all their accrued benefits. Of course, all these accrued benefits are pre-1997.
What happened after that is that they went into a private sector scheme. It was a closed section of that scheme, only for the members who transferred their public sector rights into it. The public sector rights had full inflation protection for pre-1997 and members paid an extra 30% or so contribution into that private sector scheme in order to conserve the inflation protection. However, as part of that, the pension they were saving for, the base pension, was lower than the one for those members in the open scheme who had joined not from the public sector. They were working on the principle that that their scheme was secure and that they would be getting the uplifts of inflation. When it failed—the private sector company went bust in 2012—and they went into the PPF in 2016, they suddenly discovered that they had paid 30% more for inflation protection, which was gone. And because they had paid 30% more for that protection and were accruing a lower pension, a 180th instead of a 160th scheme, their whole compensation was lower than that of everybody else who had not had any assurances from the Government that transferring their previous rights into a private sector scheme would generate these kinds of losses.
This is probably the worst example I have seen of government reassurance and failed recognition of the risks of transferring from a guaranteed public sector scheme into a private sector scheme. This amendment seeks to require the Government to lay regulations that would transfer members out of the PPF, those members of the closed scheme, if they wish to. I am not forcing anyone to do so within this amendment. You have to offer them the option of going or staying if they are satisfied with the PPF. Also, a sum of money may need to be paid to the PPF, which would take away the liability and thereby reduce PPF liabilities, but also sets up an alternative scheme that could be along the lines of the AWE arrangements, for example. That would potentially be another option. On privatisation, the Government received a substantial sum of money from the sale of that company, the private sector takeover of the commercial arm of the Atomic Energy Authority. That delivered less money than was paid to the private sector scheme to take over the liabilities. Therefore, the Government have money to pay with, which they have never really acknowledged.
I hope that this amendment is a potentially direct way to help the AEAT scheme, if the Government are minded to consider it. It builds on a provision that is already in the Pensions Act 2004, which talks about situations whereby there is a discharge of liabilities in respect of the compensation, which this amendment would be doing. It prescribes the way in which subsection (2)(d) of Section 169 of the Pensions Act 2004 could be used to help the AEAT scheme.
I have also been approached by a private sector employer whose scheme failed and went into the PPF. At the time, the employer did not have sufficient resources to buy out more than the Pension Protection Fund benefits for his staff. He now is in a position to do that and would like to do so but, at the moment, he cannot get his scheme extracted. He is willing to pay an extra premium to do that, in pursuance of a moral duty to try to give his past staff better-than-PPF benefits. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. It is built on the connection between AEAT and AWE, but could also help other private sector schemes if the employer feels—it would normally involve smaller schemes—that there is a moral obligation that they can now meet, financially, to recompense members at a level better than the PPF, once the assessment period is over and the resources have gone in, and to take it back out again.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, this group concerns the proposed transfer of the AWE pension scheme into a new public sector pension arrangement, as set out after Clause 110 in government Amendments 194 to 202, with the associated measures on extent and commencement in government Amendments 223 and 224.
At first glance, these new clauses are presented as technical and perhaps little more than an exercise in administrative tidying up, reflecting the fact that AWE plc is now a wholly government-owned company. However, on closer inspection, several questions come to mind. This represents a material transfer of long-term pension risk and does so in a way that raises serious questions around principle, process and precedent.
On an IAS 19 accounting basis, AWE plc reported a defined benefit pension deficit of £97 million as at 31 March 2025. The company has already made significant one-off contributions: £30 million in March 2024, following an earlier £34.4 million in March 2022. These payments form part of a recovery plan agreed with the trustee and the Ministry of Defence, and the position is subject to ongoing review. This is an active funding challenge, one that should be considered carefully.
The provisions before us establish a bespoke statutory framework for a single named company. They provide for the creation of a new public sector pension scheme, the transfer of assets and liabilities, the protection of accrued rights, specific tax treatment, information-sharing powers, consultation requirements and arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny. All of this is meticulously itemised and carefully drafted.
Yet my concern lies not with the drafting but with the policy and constitutional choice that sit beneath it. We are told repeatedly that members’ rights will be preserved; that phrase carries considerable weight. The question is a simple one: which rights precisely are being preserved? Are we referring solely to rights accrued through past service or does that protection extend to future accrual as well? Does it encompass accrual rates, indexation arrangements, retirement age and survivor benefits or are members’ entitlements merely frozen as a snapshot at the point of transfer? What happens if the rules of the receiving public sector scheme change in future? These questions go to the heart of both member security and parliamentary responsibility. They deserve answers in the Bill, not assurances in principle or reliance on mechanisms that may evolve long after this Committee has given its consent.
There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. How exactly will trustees be formally discharged of their responsibilities? Additionally, does this change relate to DC members? Will each defined contribution pot be automatically converted or will past defined contribution rights be crystallised, with future accrual taking place under a defined benefit structure? For scheme members, these questions go to the very heart of retirement security.
I also question the decision to legislate company by company. This new clause is not objectionable because it concerns pensions; it is objectionable because it concerns one named corporate identity. Primary legislation should set rules of general application.
If the policy rationale here is sound, and if it is right that the pension schemes of wholly owned government companies should be transferred into the public sector on certain terms, that principle should be capable of being expressed generally and should not be hard-coded for AWE alone. Otherwise, we will face an unhappy choice in the future: if AWE’s status changes again, Ministers must either live with an outdated statute on the books or return to Parliament with yet another Bill to amend it. Neither outcome represents good lawmaking.
There are also practical questions that I hope the Minister will address. Will members receive individualised benefits statements, comparing their position before and after the transfer in clear, comprehensible terms? What support will be made available for members who need independent guidance, rather than reassurance from the scheme sponsor itself? Will there be formal consultation with scheme members and recognised unions, and will the responses to that consultation be published?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by discussing Amendment 203ZC and then come to the other amendments.
Amendment 203ZC would add new provisions to the Pensions Act, which would mean that, if an alternative sponsor provided a sufficient premium, a cash payment or alternative arrangement could be provided for members of that scheme that secured better benefits than the PPF level of compensation. The amendment seeks in particular to help members of the AEA Technology pension scheme. As we have heard, AEAT was formed in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority—UKAEA—and was subsequently privatised in 1996. Employees who were transferred to AEAT joined the company’s new pension scheme, and most of them opted to transfer their accrued UKAEA pension into a closed section of the AEAT pension scheme. In 2012, 16 years later, AEAT went into administration, and the AEAT pension scheme subsequently entered the PPF.
I express my sympathy for all AEAT pension scheme members; I recognise their position. I am pleased to say that on pre-1997 indexation in PPF, which is an issue for AEAT members, we have listened and acted. Those with pre-1997 accruals and whose schemes provided for pre-1997 increases, which includes AEAT members, will benefit from this change.
However, the Government do not support this amendment. The noble Baroness outlined some of the issues around AEAT, but this case has been fully considered. We set this out in our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry on DB pensions. These investigations included, but are not limited to, reviews by three relevant ombudsmen, debates in the Commons in 2015 and 2016 and a report by the NAO in 2023. This matter has also been considered by previous Governments in the period since AEAT went into the PPF, all of whom reached the same conclusion.
AEAT members have asserted that upon privatisation, insufficient funds were transferred into the scheme. As I understand it from historic responses, this amount was based on the financial assumptions at the time, and the trustees of the scheme agreed the transfer value. Members have also outlined that, given the amount transferred to the PPF, with investment, they could now be paid their full pension. However, the PPF does not work that way; let me explain why.
When schemes enter PPF assessment, evaluation is generally undertaken to determine whether there are enough assets to secure at least PPF-level benefits. Sufficiently well-funded schemes can come out of the assessment supported by PPF-appointed trustees to secure greater benefits than PPF compensation. Schemes that are funded below this level are transferred into the PPF. The PPF does not permit transfers out because it does not work as a segregated fund where individual scheme contributions are ring-fenced and can later be transferred out. That is due to PPF investment policies because the only grounds on which that might happen would be, for example, if PPF investment policies were such that they then became better funded.
The reason that does not work is that the PPF is a compensation scheme operating in the interests of all its members. It is not a collection of individual pension schemes. Funds transferred in from underfunded schemes and insolvency recoveries, alongside the levy and investment returns, are all brought together. Allowing members of schemes that have entered the PPF to transfer back out would undermine its ability to provide compensation for all its members and for future schemes in the case of employer insolvency.
This amendment changes the purpose of the PPF as a compensation fund and that safety net in case of employer insolvency. Schemes go into the PPF either because an alternative sponsor cannot be found to take on the scheme’s liabilities or because the scheme is unable to secure benefits that correspond to at least PPF compensation levels. We do not expect alternative sponsors will be found to pay a premium for schemes that have transferred into the PPF. Additionally, it would place a different role on the board of the PPF to undertake a member-by-member assessment of whether members would get better benefits through a transfer. We do not underestimate the difficulty of this, given the decades since many schemes, such as the AEAT, entered the PPF. Changing the PPF’s role and how it operates as set out would need to be much more broadly considered, alongside impacts on the PPF and potentially unintended consequences.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Section 169(2)(d) in the Pensions Act 2004 seems to make provision for this to happen. Therefore, what is the purpose of that clause? I am trying to build on that to specify circumstances in which it could happen. Of course, when a scheme is in the assessment period, it can be extracted. I am trying to say that if it has gone in and can improve the funding of the PPF by paying a premium and give members more than they would have in the PPF, why would there be an objection?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The challenge of this is that of course schemes can come out in the assessment period. That is the point of the assessment period: to work out whether there is a sponsor or enough funds, which could, with appropriate support, be able to deliver greater-than-PPF benefits, in which case the scheme may go out again. It goes into the PPF only if that cannot be the case. Once it has gone in, the scheme does not exist anymore. There are no scheme assets because, at that point, the members are not scheme members but members of a compensation scheme. It cannot be the case that, years later, someone should come along and say, “We now want to try to move a group of former members of a particular scheme back out of the PPF”. That simply does not work.
The noble Baroness asked something else. I apologise for being slightly confused earlier on: I thought this was going to be part of the previous group, so I am slightly scrabbling around trying to put my speaking notes in the right place. The noble Baroness is trying to draw a comparison between AWE and this. Although they were both DB pension schemes in the nuclear industry, the two situations are entirely different. AEAT was created in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UKAEA. It became a private company, with no further government involvement in ownership or management.
By contrast, AWE, which is responsible for manufacturing, maintaining and developing the UK’s nuclear warheads, has since the 1950s either been government owned or the Government have held a special share in the company. It became fully owned by HMG again in 2021, when it became an NDPB. As the Government own and fund AWE, they are also responsible for funding its pension scheme responsibilities. That is why the AWE has a Crown guarantee, granted in 2022, shortly after it became a public body of the MoD, having previously been government owned. I hope that explains why the two are differently treated.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the possibility, which is arising, of someone who can come along after the assessment period and pay more than the PPF can provide. As I say, that could help the PPF’s funding. It should not in any way impact on the levy, and it is an option to permit that to happen. So my amendment, building on what is already in the Pensions Act 2004 but which has not yet been used, given that schemes are in surplus, would allow them to do that.
The other thing I will say is that everyone in the closed section of the AEAT with accruals before 1997 was in the public sector. They were members of a public sector scheme, and they were advised by the Government Actuary’s Department that if they transferred they would not need to worry about the security of their pension, but that turned out not to be the case. I therefore hope the Minister can see the parallels. I know she is in a difficult position on this, but I thank her for her consideration.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not in a difficult position. The Government’s position is clear: these are not comparable schemes. One has a Crown guarantee, for the reasons that I have explained, while the other does not because, for a significant portion of its history, it was a private company. It was privatised, and it subsequently went into administration. Those are not comparable situations. While I have sympathy for the position of individual scheme members, that does not make the two comparable or the Government’s responsibility comparable. I am certainly not aware that someone is out there waiting to sponsor this, although the noble Baroness may be. She is nodding to me, and if she wants to share with the Committee that she has a sponsor ready to do that, I would be glad to hear it, but the idea that this would routinely be a pattern where, for lots of long-dead pension schemes, sponsors are waiting to draw them out just would not be practical for the PPF.
I am also advised that the subsection 2(d) that the noble Baroness mentioned is not in force. That does not make a difference to her argument, but it may make a difference to the nature of this.
I shall try to return now to the issue that we were talking about earlier on, the AWE scheme. On hybridity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that my understanding is that hybrid bills affect the general public but also have a significant impact on the private interests of specified groups. In this case, there is no impact on the general public, only on AWE members. That follows the precedent in Royal Mail and Bradford and Bingley/Northern Rock legislation. This also refers to schemes that were or are to be defunded and replaced with public schemes. I hope that explains why this is not hybrid. I cannot comment on why the clerks did not accept her amendment because I did not quite catch what it was that she was comparing it with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it may be that those are precedents that have been passed in legislation, but I am not clear that they have been put into this sort of Bill. The problem with the amendments is that they are a mixture of the general and the individual. That is what creates hybridity, which is why I ran into trouble with the Table Office when I tried to table my amendment. However, the Minister’s amendment seems not to have run into that issue, so that is something that we need to consider. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at it and bring the amendments back on Report, assuming that she is right and there is not a hybridity issue. I am very concerned about a constitutional innovation without expert guidance. She wrote a letter; I did not get it, but obviously I have been taking advice on this. It is slightly outside the remit of what we are able to agree on.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. In the light of her comments, I do not know enough about what she tried to do and why it did not work. I would like to be able to compare them. Given that she makes a perfectly sensible suggestion, I happy to withdraw the amendment and make sure that I can answer her question before we come back on Report, if that is okay with noble Lords. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Indexation of pre-1997 pensions(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.(2) In Section 51 (annual increase in rate of pension)—(a) omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c)(ii);(b) in subsection (2)—(i) omit “on or after April 1997”;(ii) omit “to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(iii) omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(c) in subsection (4ZE), omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(d) in subsection (5)(a), omit “6 April 1997 or”;(e) in subsection (8)(a) and (b), omit “at any time on or after 6 April 1997”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to try to put this issue into context. This is the third leg of our discussion, which centres on what we do now in relation to benefits that accrued for pensionable service prior to 1997.
I am going to take the Committee into a little history. The 1997 date was set by the Pensions Act 1995. I was there; although I had long left the TUC, because the TUC’s normal pensions officer had taken leave of absence for a few months, I was, in effect, acting as the TUC’s pensions officer at the time. On the background, in terms of what people understood about pension increases at that time, I will go all the way back to 1971, when the Pensions (Increase) Act was passed. In 1971, it was obviously under a Conservative Government. They linked public service pensions to inflation—initially RPI then subsequently, from 2011, CPI. That was all well and good. It set the standard, quite properly, for the Government of good pension provision, including increases. I make no apology for that. I am sure that we will return to this issue when we have the debate at our next meeting on public service pensions. The Conservative Government set that standard.
Then, in 1981—again, under a Conservative Government —Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, decided, egged on by Aims of Industry, that there should be a review of pensions and pension increases. She took a personal interest—it is all there in the Thatcher archives—and established the Scott inquiry. Chaired by Sir Bernard Scott, a prominent businessperson at the time, it was a five-person inquiry that undertook a detailed study of pension increases, starting with public service pensions. We do not hear much about this inquiry now—there is another more famous Scott inquiry—because it came up with the wrong answer. Despite the committee being hand-picked by the Prime Minister, it came up with the answer she did not want. It said that index-linking was justified—it is worth saying here that, when it says “index-linking”, it is talking about the limited price index, or LPI, so not full indexation in all circumstances but up to a limit—and that there was no case for its removal from public service schemes.
The committee decided that public service pensions were not overly generous overall. It pointed out that the main driver of costs for public service pensions was not index-linking but the final salary benefit structure. Again, as an aside, it is worth noting that, from 2011 onwards, public service schemes moved away from that; they are now all average salary schemes. The committee advocated for parity of pension increases with state pension increases. So this committee, which was set up to tell the world how bad index-linking was, said that everyone should have index-linking. That was in 1981.
There is another stage. Originally, when schemes contracted out, they promised to provide GMPs. Initially, the GMPs were not index-linked but had a flat rate, and the state scheme was left to provide the indexing on the fixed flat-rate private sector schemes. However, by 1986, it was decided that the private sector schemes could provide LPI, initially at 3%. The scheme had to provide GMP, but it provided inflation linking up to 3%, and inflation over that would still come from the state scheme. This is where the contracting out becomes incredibly complicated, of course. That change to the GMP was when a Conservative Government introduced an additional element of index-linking in occupational schemes.
Then we had the Maxwell scandal, the subsequent Goode report and the Pensions Act 1995. There is a theme here. It was a Conservative Government; William Hague was the Secretary of State. From 1997, they introduced LPI index-linking, initially up to 5% and subsequently reduced to 2.5% in 2005—unfortunately, that was a Labour Government, but there you go. So there is this whole consistent move towards limited price indexation in occupational schemes. It became the accepted approach to providing occupational schemes. A scheme that did not provide some element of indexation in retirement was seen as an inferior scheme.
I was there, as I say, so what was my experience? Many schemes, particularly larger schemes, had LPI in the rules pre 1997, following Scott in the early 1980s. Schemes have gradually introduced it more and more; of course, index-linked bonds were introduced specifically as a follow-on from the Scott report. So many schemes, particularly large schemes, had LPI in the rules.
Other schemes said, “We’re going to provide indexation but we’ll do it under discretionary powers”. However, they still expected to provide increases and funded for them. It is my view, having been there, that, pre 1997, the number of schemes making no allowances for LPI increases was vanishingly small. For some, it was in the rules; for others, it was in the funding basis. Practically every member had a reasonable expectation of LPI in retirement in respect of the benefits that they accrued pre 1997. The statutory requirement was introduced to cover all schemes, as recommended by the Goode report; that was absolutely right.
So the suggestion that people are unreasonable in expecting their pre-1997 benefits to be increased is entirely wrong. It was entirely reasonable for them, and that is what people believed at the time, although they may not have a legal entitlement. This does not affect just the PPF or the Financial Assistance Scheme, where we are told that, if the scheme did not have it in the rules, it will not get these increases. It particularly affects active pension schemes—not necessarily those with new entrants, but those with pensioners to whom the scheme is paying money.
Many of the members will have benefits accrued before 1997, and those members have a reasonable expectation of increases. That is why I move Amendment 203 as a basis for discussion at this stage. In the light of what we hear, I may come back to the issue on Report. The law can now move to requiring increases on pensions accrued pre-1997, whatever it said in the rules, because it is a question of not legal but political justification. Politically, people can reasonably expect the Government to provide them with justice, and there is a reasonable moral expectation that they should now get limited price indexation on their benefits accrued prior to 1997.
The issue here is the position in which so many members find themselves. Their trustees—who were perhaps more engaged, years ago, with the operation of the scheme in those days—gave them a reasonable expectation of the benefits. I wrote to many schemes around that time, asking them what their practice was, having got an increase in the rules. Many of them wrote back to me and said, “Yes, we expect to increase these pensions and we are funding the scheme on that basis”.
Trying now, 30 years later, to distinguish between schemes that provided for these increases in the rules and in the funding basis is politically and morally wrong. These people have a reasonable expectation, and we have this opportunity to see that they are treated correctly. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, and I would love the Government to find themselves able to accept it. I would certainly agree on the moral case and on the historical justification for members having reasonable expectations that their pensions would not suddenly be whittled away to a fraction of what they would previously have had. The Goode report recommended unlimited inflation protection, but it was limited when it came in and it was only from 1997 onwards rather than retrospectively. There are echoes there of what we have just heard about the Pension Protection Fund.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is here; he was instrumental in campaigning for the Allied Steel and Wire members and worked so hard to help them, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also did. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is no longer here, but this would certainly apply to the Allied Steel and Wire members, and I urge the Government to look at the amendments. I fear that there may be little appetite, given that our previously much more modest suggestions were rejected and bearing in mind that not all schemes are in surplus—there may be an issue. But, if the Government were so minded, there is certainly a good case for considering the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, so ably moved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and I am grateful to him for his tour d’horizon on the history behind this issue with the uprating, going back through several parties and Parliaments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I fully understand why members find this proposal attractive. The idea that pensions should keep pace with inflation feels intuitively fair, of course, but we think that mandating inflation increases for all pre-1997 service in live defined benefit schemes would be a step too far.
This amendment would dictate in statute how trustees and employers must use scheme resources and any surplus. We believe that this is overly prescriptive and risks being actively anti-business. Many employers are already using DB surpluses constructively, and that includes improving DC contributions for younger workers, supporting intergenerational fairness, and strengthening scheme security through insurance-backed arrangements and special purpose vehicles. We think that these are sensible negotiated outcomes, reflecting the needs of both members and sponsors.
It is also important to remember that employers have carried DB risk for decades. When funding assumptions proved wrong, when markets fell or when longevity rose faster than expected, it was employers who stepped in, often for many years, through additional contributions and balance sheet strain—that might be an understatement. I choose to use a casino analogy, not to make light of a serious subject but to illustrate the basic logic of risk sharing. Here goes.
In a defined benefit scheme, the employer and members effectively walk into a casino together. Trustees place bets on behalf of the scheme on how much risk to take in the investment strategy, what funding assumptions to use, how quickly to de-risk, how to price longevity and inflation exposure. Members benefit if those bets perform well because the scheme is safer and more likely to deliver the promised pension in full. But, crucially, if those bets go wrong—that is, if markets fall, inflation spikes, people live longer than expected or the assumptions prove too optimistic—the bill lands not on members but on the employer. The sponsoring employer is legally on the hook to repair the damage, often through years of additional contributions, cash calls at the worst possible moment and significant strain on the balance sheet. That is what the employer covenant means in practice: it is the backstop when the world does not behave as forecast, which, as we know, it often does not.
So, if we accept that the employer is the party that must cover the losses when the scheme is underwater, surely it cannot be right to argue that, when the scheme comes in above water—when investment returns are strong, funding improves and a surplus emerges—the employer must be barred in principle from any share of that upside. That is not risk sharing; it is risk asymmetry. Heads, the members win; tails, the employer loses. In any rational system, if one party is compelled to underwrite the downside, that party must be permitted—subject, of course, to trustee oversight and member protection—to share in the upside. If we legislate for a system where the sponsor carries all the risk but is denied any benefit when outcomes are good, surely we distort incentives. We make sponsorship less attractive and encourage employers to close schemes faster, de-risk more aggressively or avoid offering good provision in the first place.
This is a crucial point. The fair outcome is not that employers take everything or that members do. It is that surplus is discussed and allocated jointly by trustees and employers, balancing member security, scheme sustainability and the long-term health of the sponsoring employer. That is partnership. Legislation should support that balance but not override it; that is a crucial point.
Mandating automatic inflation uplift would also have wider consequences: higher employer costs; increased insolvency risk, ultimately borne by the PPF; knock-on effects on wages, investment and employment; and, potentially, higher PPF levies. For PPF schemes, uplift is manageable because the employer covenant has gone and Parliament controls the compensation framework. Imposing similar requirements on live schemes, however, risks destabilising otherwise healthy employers. In short, uplift should be an option, not a statutory obligation. As I said earlier, decisions should rest with trustees and employers together and not be compelled by legislation.
That said, focusing on choice does not mean ignoring power imbalances, because in some schemes genuine deadlock leads trustees to sit on surplus and de-risk further. That may be understandable, but I think it is fair to say it is inefficient. Government should be looking at how to enable better use of surplus by agreement, not mandating outcomes. Much more needs to be done on breaking deadlocks, but we believe that Amendment 203 is not the right way to do it.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I just correct the record? I believe that the Goode committee may indeed have recommended limited price inflation up to 5%, and I apologise to the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for introducing his amendment and for the history lesson. It is living history, but he always has the edge on me because he goes back to 1975, and at that point I was more interested in boys and make-up, so I simply cannot compete, I confess, on that front.
The reality is that this Government have to start in 2026 and where we are now, so we have to address what the right thing to do now is for the DB pension universe and for the schemes in general. I can totally understand why my noble friend has introduced this amendment. Members of some schemes are concerned about the impact of inflation on their retirement incomes, and I am sympathetic. We have been around this in previous groups. This amendment would remove references to 6 April 1997 as the start date for the legal requirement on schemes to pay annual increases on pensions in payment. Obviously, as my noble friend indicated, legislation requires increases on DB pensions in payment to be done only from 6 April 1997. That has been a pretty long-standing framework which reflects the balance that Parliament judged appropriate at the time between member protection and affordability for schemes and employers. These changes are normally not backdated; they are normally brought in prospectively.
Most schemes already provide indexation on pre-1997 pensions, either because it is required under the scheme rules or because they choose to award discretionary increases. The Pensions Regulator has done some analysis and is doing more work on this. The latest analysis indicates that practices differ, but many schemes have a track record of awarding such increases. However, imposing a legal requirement on schemes now to pay indexation on pre-1997 benefits would create costs that schemes and employers may simply not have planned for. These costs may well not have been factored into the original funding assumptions or contribution rates. For some schemes and employers, these additional unplanned costs could be unaffordable and could put the scheme’s long-term security at risk.
Many employers are working towards buyout to secure members’ benefits permanently. Decisions on discretionary increases must be considered carefully between trustees and employers against their endgame objective. The reality is that the rules for DB pension schemes inevitably involve striking a balance between the level and security of members’ benefits and affordability for employers. But minimum requirements have to be appropriate for all DB schemes and their sponsoring employers. A strong, solvent employer is essential for a scheme’s long-term financial stability, and that gives members the best protection that they will receive their promised benefits for life, as the employer is ultimately responsible for funding the scheme. Any change to that statutory minimum indexation has to work across the full range of DB schemes. This amendment would increase liabilities for all schemes, regardless of their funding position or governance arrangements. While some schemes and employers may be able to afford increasing benefits in this way, others will not.
The way DB schemes are managed and funded since the 1995 Act was introduced has changed, but the basic principle remains that we cannot increase scheme costs on previously accrued rights beyond what some schemes might be able to bear or that many employers will be willing to fund, and that remains as true now as it was then. Our view is that schemes’ trustees and the sponsoring employer have a far better understanding than the Government of their scheme’s financial position, their funding requirements, their long-term plans and therefore what they can and cannot afford. They are also best placed to consider the effect of inflation on their members benefits when making decisions about indexation. The regulator has already been clear that trustees should consider the scheme’s history of awarding discretionary increases when making decisions about indexation payments.
We discussed earlier in Committee the Government’s reforms on surplus extraction. They will allow more trustees of well-funded DB schemes to share surplus with employers to deliver better outcomes for members. As part of any agreement to release surplus funds to the employer, trustees will be better placed to negotiate additional benefits for members, which could include discretionary indexation. Although I understand the case my noble friend is making—I regret that I cannot make him and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as happy as they wish—I hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank those who have taken part in this debate on an important issue. Many people out there—I have had messages from people who are watching this debate—hope for better news. I am sorry that at this stage the Government are maintaining the line.
On the question of history, I could go back to the 1960s and Richard Crossman’s national superannuation if people would like—I am even slightly tempted to start. But the bit of history I remember is in the 1980s, when many schemes had surpluses and the Government introduced, through the Inland Revenue, limits on surpluses, compelling schemes to deal with them. At that time, employers said to us—I was involved in many negotiations—“Okay, it’s fine, we’ll take the surpluses now, but depend on us. When things get tough, we’ll come up with the additional money required”. What happened is they gave up and walked away. That is why the Labour Government in the early part of this century introduced funding requirements, the Pension Protection Fund and so on because, ultimately, when employers and trustees were put to the test, all too often they failed to deliver the promises that they made when surpluses were available.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, rightly tied this to the issue of surpluses and certainly there will be an opportunity on Report to discuss the linkage between employers getting refunds from their schemes and providing better increases for members. That is such an obvious linkage. I would want to go beyond that, but the issue will continue. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(b) may impose a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes) or may impose both a risk-based pension protection levy and a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes).”Member’s explanatory statement
If the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) needs to raise a pension protection levy in future, this amendment would give the PPF more flexibility as to how to raise a levy and to decide at the relevant time whether to raise a risk-based levy, a scheme-based levy, or both (as well as the appropriate proportions between them).
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is removing the requirement for the Pension Protection Fund to charge a levy each year, and the PPF has said for some time that there will not be one this year. Indeed, our discussions on other issues today have taken us into speculation as to whether there would ever need to be a levy again if the PPF is self-funding on the investment income from its current surplus assets.
The purpose of these amendments is to give the PPF more flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and the changing landscape should a levy be needed in the future, recognising that that future might be quite a long way away. As we are now in a more robust world than when the levy was created, with the PPF and this £14 billion surplus, the levy is no longer needed and we do not know when it will need to be raised again.
Amendment 203A would add flexibility to the PPF fund-raising provision so that it can raise funds that are either scheme-based or risk-based or both. That replaces the present Bill position that a scheme-based levy can be provided only if there is also a risk-based levy. Amendment 203B is consequential, and Amendment 203C would remove the requirement for at least 80% of the levy to be risk-based, which is obviously incompatible with the all-round flexibility that I am proposing in Amendment 203A. Thus, the PPF would be able to decide the type of levy and the balance between the two. The PPF itself has already publicly commented that it would support greater flexibility, and there might need to be a case for a greater proportion of any levy to be scheme-based.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I very much support the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to ensure there is proper flexibility in the levy paid by companies to the PPF. The PPF can then use its discretion to decide which companies should pay more than others and which companies are more secure than others in terms of their pension schemes. The current requirement is based on circumstances that have fundamentally changed over the past 20 years or so, since the whole system was first thought of.
The PPF is one of our incredible success stories in terms of protecting people’s pensions by successfully investing money that it has taken in. It has worked far better than anyone would have anticipated at the time, and we need to pay tribute to those who have been running the PPF; they have done an extraordinarily good job in the face of sometimes very difficult circumstances. I hope that the Government will think favourably about the possibility of allowing the PPF this kind of flexibility, given that the situation with pension schemes, surpluses and funding levels has changed so fundamentally.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, are thoughtful and proportionate. They raise genuinely important questions about how we can future-proof the operation of the Pension Protection Fund.
Clause 113 amends the provisions requiring the PPF board to collect a levy that enables the board to decide whether a levy should be collected at all. It removes the restriction that prevents the board reducing the levy to zero or a low amount and then raising it again within a reasonable timeframe. We welcome this change. It was discussed when the statutory instrument passed through the House, at which point we asked a number of questions and engaged constructively with the Government.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would go further; once again, the arguments she advances are compelling. Amendment 203A in particular seems to offer a sensible way to shape behaviour without micromanaging it—a lesson on which the Government may wish to reflect more broadly, especially in relation to the mandation policy. If schemes know that the levy will always be raised in one rigid way, behaviour adapts, and not always in a good way. In contrast, with greater flexibility, employers retain incentives to keep schemes well funded, trustees are rewarded for reducing risk and the levy system does not quietly encourage reckless behaviour on the assumption that everyone pays anyway.
This amendment matters because it would ensure that, if the PPF needed to raise additional funds, it could do so in the least damaging and fairest way possible at the relevant time. I fully appreciate that the PPF is a complex area but, as the market has changed and is changing, and as the pensions landscape continues to evolve, the PPF must be involved in that journey. These are precisely the kinds of questions that should be examined now, not after rigidity has caused unintended harm.
I turn briefly to Amendment 203C. We are open to finding ways to prevent the levy framework becoming overly rigid, which is precisely why we supported the statutory instrument when it came before the House. Instead of hardwiring an 80% risk-based levy requirement into law, this amendment would place trust in the Pension Protection Fund to raise money in the fairest and least destabilising way, given the conditions of the year. Flexibility may well be the way forward. I have a simple question for the Minister: have the Government considered these proposals? If the answer is yes, why have they chosen not to proceed? If it is no, will they commit to considering these proposals between now and Report? I believe that that would be a constructive and proportionate next step.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for introducing her amendments and explaining why she wants to advance them. As she said, taken together, they would give the PPF much more flexibility—full flexibility, in fact—in deciding how to set the levy by removing the requirement for at least 80% of the PPF levy to be risk-based. Obviously, in the current legislation, 80% of the levy has to be based on the risk that schemes pose to the PPF; this supports the underlying principle that the schemes that pose the greatest risk should pay the highest levy.
Although the PPF is responsible for setting the pension protection levy, restrictions in the Pensions Act 2004 prevent it significantly reducing the levy or choosing not to collect a levy when it is not needed. As has been noted, the PPF is in a stronger financial position and is less reliant on the levy to maintain its financial sustainability. That is why, through the Bill, we are giving it greater flexibility to adjust the annual pension protection levy by removing the current legislative restrictions.
Clause 113 will enable the PPF to reduce the levy significantly, even to zero, and raise it again within a reasonable timescale if it becomes necessary. To reassure levy payers, Clause 113 provides a safeguard that prevents the board charging a levy that is more than the sum of the previous year’s levy and 25% of the previous year’s levy ceiling. The legislative framework will also enable the PPF to continue to charge a levy to schemes it considers pose a specific risk. In support of this change, the PPF announced a zero levy for 2025-26 for conventional DB schemes and is consulting on setting a zero levy for these schemes in the next financial year. That would unlock millions of pounds in savings for schemes and boost investment potential, and it has been widely welcomed by stakeholders.
On the way forward, as the PPF is not currently collecting any levies from conventional schemes, whether risk based or scheme based, the make-up of the split is less consequential for schemes: a different percentage of a zero charge is still zero. But, while the PPF is strongly funded, it underwrites the whole £1 trillion DB universe, as I said. There is inevitably huge uncertainty about the scenarios that could lead to the possibility of the PPF needing to charge a levy again in the future, but it cannot be entirely discounted. We recognise the concern that, if that were to happen, the proposed legislation does not go far enough to allow the PPF to calculate the appropriate split between risk-based and scheme-based levies, particularly as the number of risk-based levy payers is expected to diminish over time.
Obviously, the amendments tabled here would give the PPF full discretion on how the split of the levy is calculated and set. While that may be welcomed by some, our view is that we need to consider any changes carefully to ensure that any legislation is balanced, is proportionate and gives the right flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards. That will take time. We will continue to consider whether further structural change to the PPF levies may be required in the future and, where it is, whether it works for the broad spectrum of eligible DB schemes, the PPF and levy payers.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Government’s view is that there is a reason the framework is set in legislation: to give levy payers confidence on future calls. But, as I said, we will consider the way forward. I cannot say to the noble Baroness that we will do that between now and Report—it will take time to reflect on future changes and, if there are to be any, to make sure that they happen—but I am grateful to her for raising the matter and for the debate that it has produced. I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I thank noble Lords who spoke. I freely admit that they know more than I do about these aspects, so I am glad that the conversation has started. I understand that this might bring something a little less wide in due course. It is a conversation that, having started, I hope will be continued. I will think about whether I can invent something that is a little less adventurous for Report, but in the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Pension investment in social bonds: framework, value for money and market enablement(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish an assessment of whether a pension-specific framework should be established to support trustees of occupational pension schemes who wish to invest, where they consider it appropriate, in social bonds and other forms of social infrastructure investment.(2) The assessment must consider the extent to which such a framework could—(a) provide clarity on the application of trustees’ fiduciary duties in relation to social bonds,(b) set out principles for assessing risk, return, liquidity, duration and transparency of such investments, having regard to the long-term nature of pension liabilities,(c) support consistency and comparability in the evaluation of social bonds across schemes, and(d) facilitate trustee confidence and member understanding of such investments.(3) In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether, and how, the social and economic outcomes associated with social bonds could be reflected within the value for money framework applicable to occupational pension schemes, including—(a) the relevance of long-term economic impacts to member outcomes,(b) the extent to which such investments may mitigate systemic or economy-wide risks material to pension savings, and(c) the presentation of information to members in a clear and proportionate manner.(4) The assessment must also consider how a pension-specific framework could support the development of a credible and investable pipeline of social bond opportunities, including— (a) how public bodies, local authorities, social enterprises or other issuers might bring forward proposals in a form suitable for consideration by pension schemes,(b) the role of standardisation, intermediaries or aggregation vehicles in reducing transaction costs and improving investability, and(c) how such proposals could be assessed on a consistent basis without imposing any obligation on pension schemes to invest.(5) In developing the assessment, the Secretary of State must consider what metrics and evidential standards would be required to ensure that any framework for social bonds is pension-specific, including—(a) metrics relating to long-term risk-adjusted financial performance,(b) alignment with the duration and cash flow characteristics of pension liabilities,(c) the financial materiality of social and economic outcomes to pension savers over time, and(d) the avoidance of reliance on generic or non-financial impact measures not relevant to pension scheme decision-making.(6) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the conclusions of the assessment, and(b) where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, issue statutory guidance or make regulations establishing a pension-specific framework for the prudent assessment, reporting and communication of investments in social bonds.(7) Nothing in this section—(a) requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class, or(b) alters the requirement that trustees act in the best financial interests of scheme members.”
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 204. I make clear that this amendment does not require trustees to invest in any particular asset class, nor does it seek to redefine or dilute fiduciary duty in any way. Those safeguards are explicit in the amendment. Trustees must always act in the best financial interest of scheme members, and nothing here displaces that principle, consistent with the approach that we have taken throughout our deliberations in Committee. Instead, the amendment asks the Government to step back and consider whether trustees who wish to explore investments such as social bonds or social infrastructure would benefit from clearer pension-specific guidance and a more coherent framework within which to operate.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218C; I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for supporting it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that pension schemes invest their funds in a manner that is
“consistent with those provisions of human rights and international law which have been ratified by the UK”.
It would require scheme managers to take appropriate steps to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks that investments may contribute to adverse human rights impacts. These obligations would apply to investments globally.
As the Prime Minister of Canada pointed out in his powerful speech at Davos, it seems
“that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can and that the weak must suffer what they must”.
At such a time, we are under an obligation to do whatever we can to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law includes, of course, the duty on nation states to honour and put into effect the obligations that they have explicitly undertaken to observe by ratification of the relevant treaties.
The great jurist Lord Tom Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law in his seminal book of the same name. He said:
“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistent with that, the current Ministerial Code, binding on British Ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations laws.
This point was reinforced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in the House when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed that point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on 29 May 2025, in which he gave this rejection:
“The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change ... The international rules-based order soon breaks down when States claim that they can breach international law because it is in their national interests … The argument … that the United Kingdom can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional traditional, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law”.
Today, 81 years after the end of the Second World War, in which tens of millions of people gave their lives, the global edifice of international law, erected specifically to prevent the repetition of such horrific events, is in tatters. No matter how justified the perpetrators believe it to be, the fact is that Russia is conducting war on Ukraine; the Israeli state has attacked Gaza and permitted attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank; and the United States has attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, and threatens military and economic attack on Greenland, Iran, Cuba and other states. Iran is waging war on its own people. There are many other conflicts around the world where the United Nations conventions are flouted, humanitarian law is breached and war crimes are committed. As legislators, we have a duty to do what we can to sustain international law and restore its impeccable norms throughout the world.
Amendment 218C is intended to play its part. The pension schemes to which the amendment would apply include the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is one of the largest public sector pension schemes in the UK, with more than 6 million members and managed assets of some £392 billion. It is made up of 86 pension funds, most of which are, as I understand it, administered by elected councillors sitting on a pensions committee. There are other public sector pension schemes, too—they are, like the LGPS, equally emanations of the state—but the amendment would also apply to private sector schemes. It is the UK’s duty to ensure that the entities it regulates and over which it has power do not place it in a situation in which it is non-compliant with its international obligations—in other words, obligations that it has voluntarily ratified and by which it continues to be bound.
The provisions of this Bill evidence the regulatory power that the UK state exercises, and can exercise, over pension schemes within its jurisdiction. The Government have the power to ensure that the pension schemes regulated by the Bill do not put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. The UK must adhere to its fundamental international law obligations in all circumstances—obligations such as the prohibition of genocide, the prohibition of war crimes, the upholding of the Geneva conventions, the elimination of racial discrimination and apartheid, and respect for the right to self-determination. That goes without saying. However, the UK must also refrain from rendering aid or assistance to another state’s serious breaches of these peremptory norms. It must co-operate with other states to take all reasonably available measures to bring to an end any such violations of those peremptory norms.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to administering authorities to give effect to the duties, by requiring an end to investments in companies that aid or assist in the commission of grave violations of international law. It would also issue directions to administering authorities in the event of non-compliance. Local administering authorities must ensure that their investment strategies give effect to the prevention and non-assistance duties. They must refrain from making new investments in companies involved in serious breaches of international law and take reasonable steps towards divesting from such companies.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which I have signed. The amendment seeks to remind the Government of existing obligations under treaties and other international law with regard to measures in the Bill. Many existing, relevant statutes and treaty obligations apply here. However, the amendment applies in a neutral way across a range of international contexts. It does not single out any country, but instead sets out clear expectations for how pension schemes should “identify, prevent and mitigate” involvement in serious human rights abuses and breaches of international law by taking proportionate steps to responsibly exit investments where necessary.
One example of where the amendment could apply is China, specifically the Uyghur region. International human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have documented crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese Government against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. These crimes include mass detention, forced labour, cultural and religious erasure, and family separation. Pension fund investments connected to supply chains benefiting from forced labour or other crimes against Turkic Muslims raise clear risks of complicity in these abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Research has found that the Local Government Pension Scheme holds approximately £12.2 billion in companies linked to alleged violations of international law by Israel. This includes investments in firms supplying weapons, surveillance technology and military equipment to the Israeli armed forces, as well as companies engaged in the construction, financing and maintenance of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. These activities have been widely recognised as contributing to war crimes and systems of repression and persecution against Palestinians.
The third example is Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have led military operations in Yemen that have repeatedly involved unlawful airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure. This raises serious concerns about investments in companies supplying arms, military equipment or logistical support used in the conflict. As we have heard, the UK already has duties under international laws not to aid or assist serious breaches of international law, and to prevent human rights harms connected to state-linked corporate activity. The amendment simply clarifies how those duties would apply to public pension fund investment and would make them operational in domestic law.
The amendment provides guidance around fiduciary duty versus international legal obligations. As we heard earlier, fiduciary duty requires lawful, prudent and long-term decision-making. It does not require maximising financial return at any cost, nor does it permit public bodies to disregard the UK’s international law and human rights obligations. The clear regulation provided by the amendment would help address uncertainty and hesitation by setting out how those obligations should be reflected in investment decision-making in a lawful and proportionate way.
The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency. At present, administering authorities are left to interpret complex international law obligations on their own. The LGPS advisory board has said that it has reached the limits of what it can do without government guidance. The amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to provide clear advice on these issues, while ensuring that pension funds such as the LGPS are acting within the Government’s legal obligations.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for proposing this important amendment. I very much hope that the Government will look at its content and support its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I rise nervously since it has been only one week since I made my maiden speech. I should declare an interest, as I have worked in the field of responsible investment for the past 25 years; I am not paid for any action there but, on occasion, my old employer allows me to use an office in the City when I have a meeting there.
I want to make two observations. One is about this Committee, which I have been sitting in on over the past few days, and one is more about this debate.
My observation on the Committee is that I am so impressed by the standard of the questioning. I am also extraordinarily impressed by the magisterial answers that can be given in pulling together what is a really complicated pensions Bill, much of which I admit not to understand. I have noted that, in our discussions and debates, there is often a great unity of purpose in terms of where we want to get to, but also some questions around how we might want to get there.
With that in mind, I want to address the issues that we are discussing today. I think that where I want to get to is very similar to the places the proposers of these amendments want to get to, but I might caution them a little to think about the ecosystem for which we are writing rules. If you look at a big UK pension fund, its equity portfolio is probably index-tracked, so it is buying entire markets rather than individual companies. It probably holds stakes in 5,000 different companies, or something like that, so we need to think practically about how we are influencing it.
We also have a situation—I find this extraordinary; I know that both the Government and the Committee are concerned about this—where an average British pension fund might have more equity investments in Nvidia and Apple than in the entire UK stock market because of the way in which assets are allocated. The UK pensions system is, therefore, a very small holder in a very large number of companies. I profoundly agree that we need to uphold international law on human rights, but, if we are to do that, do we not need to think about how we can get everyone to work together on that, rather than just a small proportion that might ultimately divest?
I note that Principles for Responsible Investment, which has $130 trillion of assets under management, has promised to be active owners and to incorporate social and environmental issues into its investment and ownership practices. Might there be some way in which we can hold those promises to account? Also, when thinking about how we can address human rights issues such as modern slavery—we have talked to companies about this—the campaigners often tell us, “Don’t have the companies ticking boxes saying that they know nothing about modern slavery. It is everywhere, and we need to be fighting it everywhere. Let us be open about how we do this”.
One initiative that I support, both in an advisory role and financially, is the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, a network that investigates 1,500 human rights abuses by companies all around the world. It goes back to the companies and says, “You’ve got to fix this”. I have been particularly keen that, if the company does not fix it, the network can then see their shareholders and make sure, at the next shareholder meeting, that those questions are being raised with the companies. I wonder whether that is something we could leverage.
Recognising how difficult this is, I led the finance initiative to persuade British companies to divest from Myanmar 15 years ago, just before Aung San Suu Kyi took over. Of course, things have gone backwards since then. I was at a party before Christmas where someone remonstrated with me about what a terrible decision it was for British companies to withdraw from Myanmar. This is quite complicated stuff. How do we build on what is already there?
I love the passionate support for new asset classes, because it is so important that we move them forward. What we want to do is to get money flowing to social causes. I am not quite sure that there is always one solution. I was very involved in the development of the green bond market, which reached a $1 trillion issuance last year—that is pretty good. We also have to think about the traditional ways we can get this. Housing associations borrow on normal markets, so how do we get more of that? We have Bridges and the LGPS, which the noble Baroness talked about. I wonder whether we should always want things to be pension specific—although I do know that this is a pensions Bill, so perhaps that is part of it.
Then there is the question of knowing the social impact. We need to be careful about what social impact is. I am struck that, if you were to set up a pension system, a lending system or even a saving system in the developing world, you would be praised for the massive social impact you would make. Similarly, Henry Duncan’s trustee savings bank—he was Scottish, like me, as were Wallace and Webster, who set up the first pension fund—had a huge social impact. As we think about the social impact of the pensions and finance industry, I note that both in terms of its liability—what it is giving the public for their savings—and the assets it is holding on their behalf, the industry is thinking about both sides of that social impact.
Going back what I said earlier, I hear quite a lot of consensus about where we want to get to. Whatever happens to these particular clauses, I wonder whether we could work together on this issue—it is a very big one—in the future in some way. Britain is an absolute leader in responsible investment. If we can listen to beneficiaries, talk to sponsors and gather the industry—and if the Government can help set the framework—we can do something that would be really worth while.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I will speak very briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I know how passionate the noble Baroness is about the issue of social impact bonds, so it seems to me that this is a very modest and well-constructed amendment that could have significantly positive impacts on growth and local amenities. It would also specifically say, after Clause 117:
“Nothing in this section … requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class”.
So it does not in any way require this to happen, but it seeks to facilitate a system set up for pension funds to invest in this way in assets that, potentially, would have a significant social benefit, of which the noble Baroness spoke so passionately, having seen the positive results.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I emphasise that this amendment is to propose regulations that will be drafted by the Secretary of State. One would expect the Secretary of State to determine whatever issues there are about international law. By the way, international law itself is quite clear. It is about whether the factual situation on the ground meets the particular requirements of international law, but I think that could all be dealt with in regulation.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I am just not convinced that one would want to put this type of responsibility on the Government. Of course, judgments in international law change from time to time, and trustees are investing for the very long term. I recall the example of Myanmar given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. There are difficult issues that I understand the Government might regulate for. How pension trustees then build that into their asset allocation is another layer of complexity that I have concerns about, but I certainly have every sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. It is a difficult one. I just caution that getting to that level of prescription could be the thin end of the wedge for pension trustees, who already have so many responsibilities upon their shoulders.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to the Committee. His comments have inspired me to make a very small intervention. It is true that there is a lot of index investment, and inevitably that will capture things inadvertently, but there are now many more indices that will be socially responsible or environmentally responsible, and trustees can choose to use them.
If pension trustees collectively and pension funds made a little more noise and made more approaches to the index providers, we may well get indices that are more pushy in what they do for social and environmental protection. Ultimately, most of the time they are paid to invent an index or they are doing it for their own platforms, but I see an open door there to apply pressure.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson—may there be many in the future. In coming to the Moses Room for the pensions Bill debate, I never thought that I would have to declare an interest, but according to the Companion I need to say that I am the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I need to put that on the record because of what has been said.
I understand where we are coming from, but the trouble is that in the modern world, investments are global. You do not necessarily have one cup being manufactured in the UK or in the countries mentioned by noble Lords. Very often, you have bits of equipment manufactured here, in Israel, in America and elsewhere. I give the F35 aircraft as an example: the parts are assembled from all parts of the world. It becomes a global thing, and it is difficult in the global economy to identify where something is manufactured or whatever.
The point at issue—it is a good point—is that trustees have to make the decision. They will take into account all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble friend Lady Janke, but at the end of the day they have a fiduciary responsibility to their members. This is not the first time this has happened. Hertfordshire very recently had an amendment to divest from one country. It was passed on the chairman’s vote. What happened? It went back to the pensions committee of Hertfordshire County Council, which decided that its fiduciary duty was not to make political statements but to look after the investments under its control. Whether it is Myanmar, Israel, China or Russia, it is a very slippery slope when you do that. So, as people involved in pensions, we have to leave it to the trustees to use their judgment, taking into account all the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and others mentioned. It is a fiduciary judgment. Our view is that the fiduciary duty should be robust, not restrictive, focused on long-term member outcomes, informed by real-world risks and clear enough to avoid defensive or overly narrow decision-making. I do not support this amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I belatedly state my interest: I am a member of the LGPS. I apologise; I should have said that at the beginning of my speech, so I just put it on the record.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. On top of the usual suspects, it is nice to welcome my noble friend Lord Hendy and particularly my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson, who was brave enough to come to Committee and speak on these kinds of topics when he has only just made his maiden. We should all be delighted to have him here, and I especially thank him for his kind words about the Committee. It is a joy, and I look forward to having him here for many more pension debates.
Amendment 204 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, gives me an opportunity briefly to update the Committee on how the Government are unlocking pension fund investment in projects with social and environmental benefits. We have talked quite a bit about the Mansion House Accord in recent Committees—for newcomers, this is the commitment by 17 major workplace pension providers to invest at least 10% of their default DC funds in private markets by 2030, with a minimum of 5% ring-fenced for UK-based assets.
The Government welcome this initiative because it is going to see funds flow into major infrastructure projects and clean-energy developments. The Sterling 20, set up in October 2025, is a new investor-led partnership between 20 of the UK’s largest pension providers and insurers and will be channelling billions into affordable housing, regional infrastructure and broadband. Initiatives such as the £27.8 billion National Wealth Fund will help increase the UK pipeline of investable opportunities. It is a UK government-created public finance institution designed to crowd in private capital, including pension investment, towards clean energy, low-carbon infrastructure and social housing projects.
This is already happening. Pension schemes have the flexibility to invest in bonds, social housing and green technology where such investments are in members’ best financial interests. Industry is clearly acting. Legal & General has pledged $2 billion by 2030 to deliver 10,000 affordable homes and create thousands of jobs. Nest has committed £500 million to Schroders Capital, including £100 million for UK investments and £40 million for rural broadband. The measures in the Bill, especially those relating to scale and governance for occupational and local government pension schemes, are intended to ensure that pension schemes reach the levels of scale and expertise to be able to invest more in a broader range of assets, including social infrastructure. The Government will be able to monitor those commitments.
It is always a delight to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, being passionate about the issues in which she has such experience. I understand the intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are worried that the proposed statutory review-and-fix framework could make the system more complex and costly to operate without a clear enough indication it would deliver better results for savers. However, I am with my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson that we should all keep talking about these issues. It is one of the debates in which we share so many objectives. We are just talking about the best way in which to do this.
I turn to Amendment 218C from my noble friend Lord Hendy. Again, I fully recognise the intentions behind it and the concerns about human rights issues and investment decisions. UK pension schemes are, in general, not just passive holders of capital but long-term responsible investors required by the regulatory framework to assess environmental, social and governance—ESG— factors across policy setting, integration, stewardship and reporting, all grounded in their statutory duty to consider financially material risks. In many schemes, responsible investment policies set clear expectations on human rights standards. For example, the People’s Partnership policy explicitly sets out how it identifies, manages and mitigates these risks.
UK pension funds invest globally, as my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson said, but within strict fiduciary duties, requiring them to prioritise members’ long-term interests, rather than simply chasing the highest return. Ethical considerations, including human rights, therefore increasingly shape capital allocation decisions as trustees weigh financial returns alongside reputational, social and sustainability risks. That role carries a significant responsibility for thorough due diligence across the portfolio. Fund managers will typically undertake screening to ensure companies meet minimum ESG standards, including sectors such as weapons, tobacco or fossil fuels and identifying weak labour rights or sustainability practices. Such screening helps manage long-term financial and reputational risks.
A core part of this is human rights due diligence assessing company policies, supply chain practices, labour standards and processes for addressing risks such as modern slavery. Managers also consider controversy histories, sanctions lists and engagement records to identify systemic concerns that may warrant action or divestment. Governance factors, board effectiveness, anti-corruption controls, executive incentives and transparency are also examined, as weak governance signals elevated long-term risk. Investors increasingly expect companies to provide meaningful ESG and human rights data consistent with UN recommendations placing risks to people and planet at the centre of decision-making.
We have seen internationally, most notably in the Netherlands, that funds will divest from companies linked to UN-identified human rights violations. UK schemes, too, are acting. We heard mention of LGPS funds. Southwark has divested itself from companies linked to conflict and genocide. In the private sector, People’s Pension withdrew £28 billion from State Street over reduced ESG and human rights engagement, reallocating the assets to managers with stronger stewardship commitments. These actions demonstrate a clear readiness to adjust strategies where human rights issues affect long-term value or reputational risk. To support such decisions, UK investors draw on respected international frameworks, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines. Evidence from the 2024 DWP call for evidence shows that trustees actively using these standards and the UN Global Compact to guide their management of social risks.
The DWP and the Pensions Regulator also provide guidance on social factors. The 2024 Taskforce on Social Factors offers practical support on risks such as modern slavery and child labour. As part of our forthcoming statutory guidance on trustee investment duties, we will consider how to embed further practical examples of good practice, from schemes such as Nest, Brunel and People’s Partnership, ensuring that trustees of schemes of all sizes can draw on proportionate, real-world illustrations of effective human rights risk management.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall conclude briefly. I hope that it is clear from the discussion this afternoon that there is a shared concern across the Committee to see pension schemes operate responsibly, prudently and in the best long-term interests of their members. Where we differ is on how that objective is best achieved. In my view, the strength of our pensions system lies in its balances: clear legal parameters set by Parliament, coupled with trustee independence, evidence-based judgment and accountability to members.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, who made a valuable and excellent contribution. He made my heart sing, and I think that our hearts beat in concert in terms of responsible and social investment. I am very keen to learn more from the noble Lord about his experience of responsible investment.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. She has been very clear—message received. I look forward to discussing social impact bonds more with the Minister and anybody else in the Committee who wishes to take part. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, if it comes back on Report, I will be very happy.
“Review of pension awareness and saving among young people(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, carry out a review into—(a) levels of pension awareness and understanding among young people, and(b) the effectiveness of existing measures to support young people to begin saving into a pension.(2) The review must consider—(a) barriers to pension saving faced by young people, including low earnings, insecure work, and gaps in financial education,(b) the impact of the automatic enrolment age and earnings thresholds, and(c) options to improve engagement, participation, and long-term retirement outcomes for younger savers.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to review pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy could better support earlier engagement and saving into pensions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name would require the Government to review levels of pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy might better support earlier engagement with pension saving. Members of the Committee will have noticed that I have included certain steers as to what the review should focus on; I hope that this brief debate will enable Members to agree largely with what we are trying to do here.
For many people in their 20s and 30s, pension saving is driven almost entirely by automatic enrolment. In one respect, this is a success story: it clearly illustrates the impact that automatic enrolment has had, with around 71% of young people in full-time employment now contributing to a pension and often benefiting from employer contributions, tax efficiency and the long-term advantages of compounding. Of course, there are opt-outs, but I am pleased to say—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that opt-out rates remain relatively low.
Progress is, therefore, welcome. However, it still leaves nearly one-third of young people not saving at all. Starting to contribute at a younger age makes an enormous difference. Compound interest, where returns build, not only on contributions but on previous returns, means that early saving is particularly powerful. Small amounts saved early can matter more than much larger sums saved later.
Yet, the reality facing young people is difficult. Surveys consistently show that younger generations face an uphill financial struggle. For many, and I remember how I felt in my early 20s, retirement feels distant and abstract, something to worry about later, rather than now. Unsurprisingly, confidence among those aged 25 to 44 about their later life savings is among the lowest of any age.
We need to understand why this is the case. It is not enough for policy bodies to list familiar explanations, such as behavioural bias, lack of knowledge or low trust, and then publish discussion papers. The Government need to know in detail what is actually preventing young people engaging with pensions. If automatic enrolment is still leaving out around one-third of eligible workers, more work clearly needs to be done. As with most things in pensions policy, the answer will be complicated, but complexity is not an excuse for inaction.
We should be clear that automatic enrolment alone is not sufficient to deliver an adequate income in retirement. Of course, I am very aware that the pensions review will be looking at this as its stage 2 focus, and I will talk more about that later. Will the pensions review properly examine these barriers to saving among the young? If not, why not? I ask the Government to give a response on this.
Young people are often focused on more immediate priorities: for example, saving for a house deposit, building an emergency fund or paying off student loans understandably come first and spring to mind; pensions, as I said earlier, are seen as something for later life. But time does not pause and there are real benefits to saving early. Early contributions help smooth out market volatility and allow savers to benefit fully from compounding over decades. Most young people will be in defined contribution schemes, where these effects matter greatly.
There is also a deeper issue of confidence. Nearly half of Gen Z believe that the state pension will not exist by the time they retire. This is a generation shaped by repeated economic shocks, from the financial crisis to the pandemic and the cost of living crisis triggered by the war in Europe. For them, pensions can feel less like a promise and more like a relic. The question is, what do we do about it? I am disappointed, as I said earlier, that pension adequacy appears only in the second stage of the review. In my view, and many people’s views, this should be a priority. Your Lordships should be asking whether lowering the automatic enrolment age, removing the lower qualifying earnings band or increasing minimum contribution rates would deliver better outcomes.
We should be asking what more can be done to reduce the barriers that discourage young people from saving at all. This is why the amendment seeks to require the Government to move faster to review pension awareness among young people and how existing policy would better support early engagement—that is, to move now and not wait until stage 2.
Finally, reverting to the barriers that I alluded to, I will make one final point, which is on the question of compulsion—just to get my oar in on this before the end of today’s proceedings. Mandation, or even the threat of it, will fall most heavily on younger savers, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Fuller earlier in the week. It risks burdening a generation who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement and who already face significant disadvantage within the system. There is already generational unfairness in pensions policy and we believe that mandation would only entrench this. It should have no place in the Bill, but we have rehearsed those arguments before. Without further ado, I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly but enthusiastically in support of Amendment 205. The case for a review was eloquently put by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and its merits are surely obvious. I hope the Minister will be able to agree with that.
In particular, I hope the review will take a close look at the situation that many Gen Z people find themselves in. Many work in the gig economy or are self-employed. The Gen Z average savings are small: 57% have pots smaller than £1,000 according to PPI data, and half of them cannot estimate their pots in any case. Perhaps alarmingly, 45% of Gen Z people rely heavily on social media for financial information—presumably delivered by animated cats. The proposed review could and should examine this in much more detail.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in proposing a review of pension awareness and saving among young people.
When I had the honour to review the state pension age for the DWP in 2021-22, I was struck by two things that strengthened the case for better policy in this area. First, I found it much more difficult to get young people or their representatives, or indeed middle career workers, to engage in my review. Those who did were keen to keep pension contributions down and they did not believe the state pension would still be universal by the time they reached the retirement age of, say, 70. They were worried about buying a flat, as my noble friend has said, looking after their children and paying back their student loans.
Secondly, the level of financial education was dire. Schools were focusing well on human rights, the environment and ESG, which was discussed under the previous amendment, but not on pensions or financial management. They were not teaching the importance of early saving, the magical impact of compound interest, the value of a pension matched by the employer and the risk of new sources of profit like cryptocurrencies. Much more such education is needed in our schools but the Department of Education was resistant, partly because teachers are also often a little short on financial education. This is an important area and I am sure the Pensions Commission will look at it, but my noble friend is right to highlight what a big job we have to do.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my words of support to the concept being promoted by my noble friend Lord Younger. I hope the Government will look into this, as it might well be a good topic to task regulators with in making sure that either they or pension schemes themselves are helping people to understand pension schemes better, how they work and the free money that goes along with a pension contribution in terms of your own money. There is, as I say, extra free money added by, usually, your employer and other taxpayers. I do not think young people always understand just how beneficial saving in a pension can be relative to, let us say, saving in a bank account or an ISA, or indeed the value of investing. It would be in the interests of the regulators and, indeed, the providers to help people to understand that. The Government’s role in guiding that and setting up this kind of review could be very valuable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken.
As we have heard, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of pension awareness and saving among young people. I agree with the Committee about the incredible importance of this issue, and I understand why the noble Viscount has tabled the amendment, but I hope to persuade him that there is another way forward.
The starting point, inevitably, is that last year the Government revived the Pensions Commission. The original commission did an astonishing job; its legacy under the previous Labour Government in effect lead to the creation of workplace pension saving via automatic enrolment. Since then, with support from both parties, automatic enrolment has transformed participation in workplace pension saving. It has been a particular success for younger people. Our participation for eligible employees aged 22 to 25 has gone up from 28% in 2012 to 85% in 2024.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will make just a few rounding-up comments. I am very pleased to have the support for my amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in particular, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It was very helpful to hear from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe the information she received directly from the review that she undertook into retirement age.
The Minister referred to the importance of education; I took note of her very helpful answers on what is happening at the sharp end of schools. I also took note of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the helpful suggestions that the regulators could perhaps play a more proactive role in this area.
I believe that Amendment 205 is modest but necessary. If we are serious about improving retirement outcomes, we must start by understanding why so many young people are disengaged and by shaping policy that meets them where they are, rather than where we wish they were.
I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is in her place. We are all very keen to know what will come out from the Pensions Commission.
One question I put to the Minister now is about the timings. My understanding is that stage one will report in early 2027—one year’s time—but stage two, which is on this subject of pensions adequacy, will be at a later stage. Can the Minister clarify those timings, as they are still a bit unclear? I understand that she is undertaking a huge amount of very important work, but that would be very helpful.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will simply say that there will be a report early next year. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm any future timings.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate the answer to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Youth Unemployment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are investing over £1.5 billion through the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy to support 16 to 24 year-olds to gain the skills and experience they need to earn and learn. A key part of this is the jobs guarantee, which provides six months of paid work for every eligible 18 to 21 year-old on universal credit for 18 months, funded for 25 hours a week with wraparound support. Grant applications for phase 1 opened on 29 January to identify delivery partners, and delivery will begin from spring 2026 in six high-need areas before expanding nationally, supporting around 55,000 young people over three years.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, and I welcome the initiatives the Minister has just mentioned, such as the youth guarantee. However, do not those initiatives need to be accompanied by welfare reform, which can quite often pull young people in the opposite direction? A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said:
“Our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty but out of work—young people in particular”.
That was reinforced by Alan Milburn, the Government’s employment tsar, who said:
“We’re spending more money on health and disability benefits for 16 to 24-year-olds than we are on apprenticeships. Is that really the right priority?”
Will the forthcoming King’s Speech therefore take the difficult but necessary decisions to reform welfare and allay the concerns of the Minister’s colleagues?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, this is welfare reform. It is wrong that there are 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning, which is why we are changing the system. We are ensuring that there is an earlier interview for young people. We are introducing 300,000 more opportunities for young people to gain work experience or training linked to an employer. Then we are ensuring that they have a backstop work placement that they will be expected to take at the end of 18 months. That is welfare reform, which this Government are putting in place to respond to the challenges left by the previous one.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what data, if any, the Government hold on the casual employment of young people between the ages of 16 and 18? Does she agree with me that young people who are able to find employment over this period, when they are often in full-time education as well, are given a range of experience that is extremely helpful to them when they come to seek full-time employment after their education is over?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. There seems to be some evidence that young people are doing less of that type of work. This is part of what Alan Milburn will look at in his review, which will consider the causes of the growing numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning. That is of course why being able to provide placements through some of the courses that young people take and the work experience that will be part of the youth guarantee gateway will be important for those young people who have not otherwise had the opportunity to understand what it is like to be in a workplace.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. It is the Lib Dem Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information, but can she say what assessment has been made of the impact of poor mental health on young people’s ability to gain work? What is the connection between the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS in dealing with this problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is precisely one of the questions that Alan Milburn will consider in his review. There appears to be a growing number of young people who are out of work for whom mental health issues are part of the reason. For many of those young people, it may well be that they would be better off in appropriate work. Being clear about the nature of that problem is an important part of Alan Milburn’s review. That, of course, goes alongside the additional support this Government are providing at an earlier stage in our schools to ensure that all schools also have access to mental health professionals, so that we can stop some of these problems earlier and before they escalate to blight people’s lives.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that a balanced school education is hugely important in this to allow the widest possible opportunities for our young people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I do. That is why, through the curriculum and assessment review, we have ensured that young people are getting the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in life and in work. We will continue to ensure that that is the case throughout our schools.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the employment of autistic adults remains at a remarkably low rate of about 30%. Each time there is a new strategy under the Autism Act, employment has been highlighted as one of the priorities. The strategy is due for renewal in July. I am sure that the Minister will be involved in the discussions for planning that strategy. How does she think we can now get autistic adults of all age groups into employment? It has been far too slow and has taken far too long, under all Governments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. This is an opportunity for us to rethink how we can ensure the appropriate support, the appropriate information and understanding of employers about the way in which autistic people can make an enormously important contribution in the workplace, and the support of work coaches in DWP and others who are providing the advice to people about how to get into work. I will certainly undertake to look into this in more detail and take the wisdom of the noble Baroness, who I know has campaigned on this for many years.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I welcome the Government’s new initiatives in this area, particularly the youth guarantee. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are going to tackle the estimated 500,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training, and who are not claiming benefits either? Are we not at serious risk of a whole generation of young people not being able to use their gifts for the good of wider society?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. That is why, first of all, our work to reduce the numbers of young people not earning or learning needs to start in schools. It needs to start with the better “risk of NEET” indicators that we are developing. It needs to start with a responsibility on schools to ensure that young people go into education at the age of 16 or work in an appropriate way. It means that the work—extended for another year—of the youth guarantee trailblazers, who have had £90 million spent on them, is important because they have been tasked in the eight areas in which they are operating with addressing exactly this question: how do we identify and reach those young people who are not even in touch with the benefits system?
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the youth guarantee scheme is not a new idea and has been in place in Wales for several years. What lessons have this Government learned from what has not worked in Wales as part of this scheme, and how have they been applied to the scheme here?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have looked at information from around the UK and from previous job subsidy schemes to help to design this. Of course, the first six job guarantee areas that I mentioned in the original Answer include one that covers a significant area of Wales. We will also use the experience of that to build the national rollout that will come in the autumn.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, recent analysis shows that in 2025-26 the real cost of hiring an 18 to 20 year-old on the minimum wage has risen by around 13% compared with just over 3% for someone on average earnings, despite under-21s largely being outside employer national insurance contributions. In light of this, what assessment have the Government made of the combined impact of the national insurance contributions and minimum wage policy on youth employment, and how are they ensuring that young people are not priced out of entry-level work or any other part of the labour market?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We made a commitment to equalise the 18 to 20 national minimum wage with the national living wage. We asked, as all recent Governments have done, the independent Low Pay Commission to recommend youth rates to enable us to do that, and we also included within the remit the expectation that it would consider how to do this in a way that avoids increases in unemployment. The April 2026 uplift ensures that the Government are taking cautious steps towards achieving this commitment, and that is the way we will continue to progress.
Construction Industry: Timber
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the use of timber in the construction industry as a low-carbon building material.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Timber in Construction Roadmap was updated and relaunched in February 2025. It sets out how we can increase the use of timber in construction. We are working in partnership with timber industries, government bodies and stakeholders to address the barriers to greater timber use. Our collaboration focuses on developing best practices, researching innovative timber products and increasing the circularity of timber construction supply chains.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this country imports 73% of the timber we need for construction, despite having one of the best climates in the world for growing softwoods. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have jointly expressed dismay that only 10% of our tree-planting over the last 10 years has been a productive softwood species we need and that our planting targets overall are unambitious. Given the many benefits of establishing new woods, including commercial softwoods, what will the Government do to rectify this disappointing situation? I know what the Minister has said about the action plan, but will she give us a guarantee that they can cut the regulations and red tape that are impeding many planting schemes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we import the vast majority of our timber and wood products, and this makes us the second largest net importer in the world after China. The Government believe that this needs to change. We want to increase the domestic timber market, and we are investing £1 billion in tree-planting and support to the forestry sector over this Parliament. As part of developing the new tree-planting programme, we have been working with our delivery partners and grant schemes to look at how we can increase conifer planting to support domestic softwood timber production.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is distinct reticence among the very big housebuilders to use anything that is not bricks and cement? What are the Government doing to encourage more prefabricated buildings with timber, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra mentioned, so that the cost of the buildings is reduced and the buildings are more environmentally friendly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need to move forward by looking at how we can further support the use of timber in housebuilding and how we can support housebuilders in that process. We have already undertaken action, including through the modern methods of construction sector. We have reformed the planning system, and tried to unblock stalled housing sites and increase the supply of affordable homes. We have published a publicly available specification for residential modern methods of construction to give greater clarity around the insurance and warranties market, which is important in this space, and to support the delivery of quality homes. In December, we launched an expression of interest for ambitious local authorities to work with us and industry partners to develop pattern books of standard house designs. These will help support growth and investment, as well deliver homes more quickly.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, what measures are the Government introducing to promote the reuse of reclaimed timber in construction projects, as outlined in the 2025 timber road map’s circular economy commitments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The road map was an important document on increasing the use of timber. As we go forward with our ambitious housebuilding programme, we need to ensure that the houses we build are as sustainable as they can be. The noble Baroness’s question about reusable timber has to be part of the discussion with housebuilders and the way we move forward.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, hemp is grown in this country and is a fantastic building material that is both carbon negative and sustainable, with fantastic insulation qualities. The French are the largest growers of hemp in Europe and use it an extraordinary amount in construction. Given that 34 miles of rope on HMS “Victory” was made of hemp, how have we let the French steal a march on us and what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. Those of us who have been involved in working with the construction industry will be aware that there is a quite a large lobby for the use of hemp in this country—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of it. As we move forward with more sustainable building, we have to look at all options, and I am sure we can consider hemp as part of that.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, among other important issues, the 2025 national security strategy highlights the need to ensure our supply chains, energy and critical goods. However, the significance of homegrown timber is overlooked, despite the fact that it was declared an essential industry during the Covid pandemic. As we have heard, timber products are vital to construction, infrastructure, housing and logistics. Please can the Minister confirm that timber is now recognised as vital to national security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we do not think the amount of imported timber is the way forward, and we have to change that. The noble Lord said that 10% is homegrown; our figures are that 80% is imported. It is important that we look at how best to turn that around. Importing huge amounts of end-product is not good for our national security, so it is important that we look at how we increase homegrown timber.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the work of Fera Science Ltd, in Sand Hutton near York, which examines the wood used in furniture and other products that brings unwelcome visitors to this country, in the form of little insects and beasties. Will she congratulate Fera Science on the work that it does, and would she have occasion to visit in the not too distant future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to congratulate Fera. It does excellent work. When I went to Forest Research, I saw some of the wood that had, shall we say, unpleasant visitors in it, so I know that both Fera and Forest Research do important work and help biosecurity in this country. I know the noble Baroness is keen for me to visit Fera and I will of course consider that.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the level of afforestation in Great Britain is about 13% and the average in the EU is mid-30%, so it is good to hear about planning for the planting of more trees. The biggest danger to tree-planting remains the grey squirrel. Recently, there was the welcome publication, at last, of the Grey Squirrel Policy Statement, which is the new name for the action plan. Can the Minister give the House some edited highlights of what the Government are doing about the grey squirrel problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is always very quick to talk about the grey squirrel, and rightly so. As he says, we have recently published our plan on grey squirrel management—if any Members are interested, they can find it on the Defra website. At the moment, the main way people manage populations is through culling as best they can. We would prefer to have more humane ways of managing pests. As the noble Earl knows, we are now investing in the scientific research on contraceptives that is taking place. If we can crack that, it would make a huge difference, but I urge noble Lords to read the document.
Lord Swire (Con)
I was slightly concerned when the Minister talked about the standardisation of house design. I contend that one of the reasons people are so negative about development is the standardisation of housing estates and designs up and down the country. With that in mind, what more can be done to encourage people to build in the vernacular—thatch and cob, in my part of the world—and, at the same time, improve the knowledge and understanding of local planning officers so that they properly understand the needs and demands of local architecture in the differing parts of our great country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need some standardised pattern books. We need a fairly extensive housebuilding programme and we must ensure that those houses are built to a minimum standard of quality. However, I take the noble Lord’s point about the importance of vernacular building in certain places. It is my understanding that, within its planning advice, the MHCLG is looking at how it can best train planning officers as well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to our high reliance on imports of timber, for both construction and furniture. We have certification schemes that are supposed to mean that timber meets environmental standards and does not abuse the human rights of indigenous people. However, it is often regarded as a tick-box exercise that is just not delivering. Are the Government going to improve those standards and make sure they are actually delivered?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware the UK timber regulations prohibit the placing of illegally harvested timber and wood products on the UK market and require the operators to exercise due diligence. The primary objective of the UK timber regulations is to tackle illegal logging and create demand for legally harvested timber, because we do not want to see it driving further deforestation. We are serious about how we manage that, but it is important to point out to the noble Baroness that we are committed to transitioning to a circular economy, in which resources are kept in use longer and waste is designed out. That will bring investment in green jobs and vital infrastructure. We are shortly going to publish our circular economy growth plan, and I urge the noble Baroness to read it.
Jobs Market
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, there is positive information in the labour market. The claimant count is falling—43,000 on the year—more than half a million people have moved into work over the past year, and real wages have risen more since July 2024 than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government. However, there is more to do, and we are delivering through our Get Britain Working plan, which includes creating a new jobs and careers service, tackling economic inactivity due to ill health and delivering our youth guarantee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I make no apology for holding the Government to account on the issue of employment. Having been brought up in Liverpool and been a Merseyside MP for 21 years, I have seen the damage that can be done by depriving people of the dignity of work. Now we have unemployment rising towards 2 million. In my 50 years in Parliament, every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they took office. When will this Government realise that you cannot tax and regulate businesses into growth?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s sentiment about the importance of the dignity of work, but unemployment is a long-term trend, both here and across the G7, and it has been rising since 2023. The good news is, however, that the number of people who are economically inactive has fallen by nearly half a million, because more people are actively looking for work. Indeed, last year, employment grew by more than half a million, which is nearly twice as much as the rise in unemployment. The noble Lord asked what we will do about it, and the answer is clear. The Government are taking action on young people who are neither earning nor learning, which the last Government ignored. The Government are taking action on long-term sickness, which under the last Government reached a record high. The Government have seen pay rise more since they were elected than under the first 10 years of the previous Administration, helping to tackle the cost of living. We are going to solve the problems we inherited, and we are doing something about it.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
Can the noble Lord elaborate on what assessment has been made of the number and the type of jobs most impacted by AI-driven automation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We are working across government to monitor the impact of AI and support job creation, providing skills training for those facing disruption. Just last week, the Technology Secretary announced that every adult in the UK is eligible to take free courses to gain practical AI skills for work, with a target of upskilling about 10 million employees. AI will undoubtedly transform the world of work, but the Government are taking action by establishing the AI and the Future of Work Unit in DSIT to ensure that this transformation boosts productivity and opportunities rather than deepening inequality.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I love the optimism from the Minister. Can he say what distortion there is on the employment figures from jobs which are not real jobs—zero-hour jobs—where people do not know whether they have a job tomorrow, next week or next month? There are so many people who now seem to be counted in the Minister’s assessment of jobs who are not fully employed. Do the Government have any actions planned to turn those negligible jobs into real jobs?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am, of course, very much a glass-half-full type of person, but one of the core reforms that the Government put through in the Employment Rights Act was to ensure that zero-hours contracts do not drive standards to the bottom. We are about rewarding good employers and ensuring that they are not undercut by bad employers through mechanisms such as zero-hours contracts.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the last Labour Government in which I was a Minister made huge strides in reducing long-term youth unemployment, but tragically we are in a situation now where we have a million young people not in education, training or work. If there is one thing a Labour Government should be about, it is opening up opportunities and providing jobs for young people. This should be the Government’s number one priority, and they should be talking about it every single day of the week. Therefore, can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to massively expand the number of public sector apprenticeships, to set an example to employers in other sectors, and to ensure that companies and organisations which benefit from public sector procurement are massively increasing the number of apprenticeships they provide as well?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord’s assessment about the importance of tackling youth unemployment. Indeed, we have set a bold new target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning, whether academic, technical or through an apprenticeship, by age 25. Indeed, as the House heard from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern earlier, we have a youth guarantee, and we have Alan Milburn leading an investigation into the cause of NEET, and he is working at pace. There will be an interim report in the spring and a report with recommendations in the summer. We are taking this very seriously and we will act on it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Labour Benches yet.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
No, I am sorry, we have not. The noble Lord, Lord Austin, is a non-affiliated Member of this House.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Following the previous question, which set out a strategy for dealing with youth unemployment, may I remind people that it was under the free market antics that we have just heard about that the Thatcher Government decimated my constituency and many Merseyside constituencies, and left them with record levels of unemployment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, I completely agree with my noble friend; I will offer just one illustration of that. Under the last Government, long-term sickness became the most common reason why people were economically inactive for the first time. It reached a new, record high of 2.8 million people. This is a shameful record, and not something that they should be preaching to us on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
There is plenty of time. It is the Conservative Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do my best in these questions not to give Ministers—particularly this Minister—a hard time. However, in my capacity as chairman of Make UK, which has 26,000 manufacturing companies, I speak to a lot of employers. They find, first, that in the last year or so, they have been faced with energy costs that are twice as much as those of their competitors in Europe, and despite the Government’s announcement nearly a year ago of a reduction in those energy costs, they have not seen anything happen. Secondly, there has been an increase in national insurance, which is a big payroll tax, and thirdly, there is the bureaucracy and other things that come out of the Employment Rights Act. Given all this, how can the Government expect employers to employ more people?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised a number of factors there, and I do not want to take up too much time in the House going through them one by one. For example, I have already talked about the Employment Rights Act and how that is about benefiting millions of employees. Also, to be absolutely clear, we are taking active measures on energy costs. We are working with Sir Charlie Mayfield to ensure that when people get work, they stay in work, and lots of employers are working with him. He is working with over 120 businesses, which employ 5 million workers, as part of the vanguard phase of his plan to ensure that we do not just get people working but keep them working. I understand the challenges that this Government face in fixing the mess that the previous Government made over the previous 14 years, but we cannot undo 14 years of damage in merely 18 months.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, in view of the continuing high level of long-term unemployment, would the Government seriously consider the TUC proposal for a national job guarantee with wage subsidy to employers for up to six months, targeted at the most vulnerable areas? Would they further consider the argument that the TUC has made that such a job guarantee would largely pay for itself by increasing revenues and reducing the spending on welfare?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that interesting proposal. I do not know the detail of it, so I would have to take it away. However, that is very much what we are doing with an element of our youth guarantee, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Smith. That is about giving a six-month guaranteed job for young people who have been receiving universal credit and looking for work for more than 18 months. That is the kind of model that we are trying out to tackle that particularly hard-to-get-to and important part of unemployment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am also a glass-half- full person, but in relation to what the noble Lord has said, there are two major reviews into the welfare system with a link to work. They are due to report later this year—at last—but their recommendations are likely to require primary legislation. There seems to be a perfect storm of inaction or delay, with no decisions expected to be taken on welfare this Parliament. What, then, is actually happening on welfare?
Lord Katz (Lab)
To echo the words of my noble friend Lady Smith, all this is around reforming welfare and the way to get people into work more comprehensively. These are serious, deep-seated issues that we must take time over, but as I have said, the Milburn review, which is about tackling NEETs—which I think the House will agree is one of the most serious problems that the country, the economy and young people face—is working at pace to deliver on that.
Civil Service Pensions: Capita
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in light of recent reports of problems arising from the transfer of Civil Service Pensions administration to Capita.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the service being experienced by some members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme is totally unacceptable, and I apologise for the distress caused to members. We have established a recovery taskforce led by HMRC’s Second Permanent Secretary and have deployed a 150-person government surge team to help to support recovery of this service. Interest-free bridging loans of £5,000, and up to £10,000 exceptionally, are available for those in hardship. We are holding Capita to account through rigorous performance indicators and financial penalties.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer and I am pleased to hear that the Government are seized of the seriousness of the situation. I hope my noble friend has had the opportunity to read the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, when MP after MP, speaking on behalf of their constituents, described the extreme circumstances that they were facing, from the bereaved not receiving death benefits to new pensioners having to wait months for their benefits. Obviously, the priority must be to get benefits to members. However, does my noble friend agree with me that perhaps the answer lies in the Labour Party’s commitment to bring about
“the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation”?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful if I lay out what the Government are doing. I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House may have been contacted for details, not least because they may be members of this scheme. If there are specific concerns or cases that people have raised with Members of your Lordships’ House, I have sought assurances that we will have the same access to the services being provided to MPs for casework in this instance and can share details with noble Lords. As regards the contract and the issue of insourcing, this contract was signed in November 2023 and came into place last year. While there may be questions about insourcing and other contracts, that simply is not going to be able to be done with this contract.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the transfer of British Army recruiting to Capita was a total shambles. What lessons were drawn from that experience and what precautions were put in place before handing Capita the responsibility for the administration of Civil Service pensions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think many of us have had different experiences with Capita in different contracts over time. I fear that I may be on the record not calling it “Capita” in other parts of Parliament. Specifically, noble Lords may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place raised concerns about this contract last summer and therefore a whole series of assurance reviews were undertaken and put in place. There are ongoing issues about what has happened and how it has happened, but the priority at this point has to be how we prioritise those who are waiting for deferred salary, but also, at the most extreme end, people who have died in service and who have taken ill-health retirement. To reassure noble Lords, the recovery plan expects that those cases will have been caught up and dealt with by the end of this month, and the hardship loans have started to be paid this week.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee last year that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that the Cabinet Office had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee last year. Following that, and the assurances we got before it went live, the Paymaster-General met with Capita and it confirmed 194 full-time equivalent staff put in place to mitigate delays in automation testing, contingency plans and triaging arrangements, and then a series of independent assurance reviews were undertaken in advance. That is not to say that there are not now serious concerns about what has happened in the last month.
To be clear, our priority at this point is fixing what is broken and making sure that the system stands up. This is a very complicated pension system: it is the third-largest in government. However, I am sure that there will be numerous opportunities to discuss what went wrong and what we need to learn from this. But I want to assure noble Lords that we are taking this with the utmost seriousness, which is why Angela MacDonald, the Second Perm Sec at HMRC, is leading the recovery taskforce. There is a 150-person government surge team supporting the Capita contract, and we are working with Capita and meeting it every day to make sure that these KPIs are being met.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas that will be prioritised—I do not know whether she is aware of this—is that former Civil Service employees who are living overseas now cannot access the online portal, so, in addition to not being able to get through on the telephone, they cannot use the online service at all. Can that be fixed as a matter of absolute urgency for those people?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as part of the recovery taskforce timetable, we expect that the online portal will be up and running in its completion at the end of next month. By the end of this month we are prioritising dealing with the people who cannot access money and those who desperately need it in terms of hardship. So, yes, I can give an assurance that by the end of next month the portal will be fully operational.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in the wake of the Post Office scandal, we have seen the Government continuing to give contracts to the company that behaved so badly in relation to Post Office employees. Can the Minister assure the House that Capita will not get the same sort of treatment and that its behaviour in this particular contract will be used in evidence when weighing up similar contracts?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
With regard to Fujitsu, I think the noble Baroness will be aware that there are ongoing issues that relate to the Horizon scandal. With regard to Capita, there are two companies at play here: the company and whether it fulfilled its responsibilities for the previous provider and what Capita actually inherited, which was double the backlog that it was expecting. So there are more complex issues at play here and I am sure that, in the coming months, we will be discussing this in great detail in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, whatever the failings of the contractor, the agreement will contain options for the contractee, but those potential remedies are only effective if the contracting authority itself is on the case relentlessly. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken over the years to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor underperforming in this way, so why should the Government allow such behaviour?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I want to be very clear that this was a contract signed by the noble Baroness’s Government in 2023, and we are now managing the contract that they signed. As regards where we are in holding Capita to account, we have withheld £9.6 million in transition payments up until this point, from a contract value over seven years of £285 million. That is a significant withhold at this point. We are making sure that Capita is meeting its KPIs and we are meeting it every day as part of the recovery taskforce. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a great number of public procurement challenges relate to the original contract and all this needs to be looked at in the round.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the challenge of contacting many people affected by this is that some of them may not be digitally proficient and may be digitally excluded. What measures are the Government putting in place to make sure that those who are digitally excluded or not digitally proficient can be contacted and made fully aware of the issue?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and there are various mechanisms being put in place, not least the call centre, which people should be able to access. I want to touch on something explicitly because the noble Lord has raised an important point. Some of the most heartbreaking issues that have come to light relate to people who have experienced death in service and bereavement. Therefore, they are receiving calls but not necessarily with the data on service, never mind their digital proficiency. So we have asked government departments to engage directly with the families of their former staff, to arrange the hardship payments in that case, and individual government departments that were the original employers are managing that, which is how we are able to ensure that the money is getting into people’s bank accounts within days, not weeks or months.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the order of commitment of 16 December 2025 be discharged and the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 16 December 2025 shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
Iran
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, while, understandably, all our attention in this country at the moment has been focused on the survival of our own Government, we should also be keeping a close eye on the future of the regime in Tehran. It has destroyed and brutalised one of the world’s great civilisations, threatened the world with nuclear devastation and exported terror around the globe, including to this country. The Iranian people, in my view, have no future if the mullahs remain in power. Can I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, the EU has now proscribed the IRGC, while this Government have given only a vague promise to do so, so please can we have a firm timetable for that necessary action? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that we will work in lockstep with the United States if they decide to take military action against that despotic regime?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
On the IRGC, we welcome the moves that the EU has taken recently. As noble Lords will know because we have discussed it before, there has been a piece of work done by Jonathan Hall. We accept the recommendations, but there are legislative changes that we need to make because, in our law, there is a difference between the way we can deal with the proscription of state actors and with terrorists. I think that the noble Lord understands this. We are proceeding, I must say with absolute respect to him, with rather more alacrity than he did when he was in power.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we must remark with great humility on the sacrifice that so many of those within Iran have made for the simple cause of seeking to have a Government that they wish to have. The Minister may recall that, on 15 January, I asked for clarification on the BBC World Service’s Persian radio service. I was delighted to receive from the BBC yesterday the news that an emergency lifeline BBC Persian radio service will be carried on, which is very good news indeed. Will the Minister restate the support for journalists in particular who are being persecuted by the regime? Secondly, I welcome the new sanctions that were announced this week, but there is currently a loophole, as the sanctions are on individuals. If the IRGC is proscribed then those who support the organisation, providing financial backing and external support, will be removed; without the proscription, there is that loophole. Will the Minister state that this is being actively looked at with urgency?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about our support for the protesters. It is essential, when we have these discussions, that we are completely grounded in the experience of those brave young people taking to the streets in Tehran and elsewhere across the country. The courage with which they are making their case is astounding. On the issue of the World Service, again, the noble Lord is right that this is an incredibly important service, and we often overlook and understate its impact, so I am pleased that it can continue. On proscription, yes, we are proceeding in the way that I outlined in response to the earlier question. We have sanctioned members of the IRGC but, as the noble Lord says, if there are additional powers through the means of proscription, we need to make changes in order to do that, but we are acting fully along with the recommendations of the Hall piece of work.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I have a very simple humanitarian question relating to what the Minister has just said. We do not know how many people have died, how many are injured or how many are missing, but we do know that the internet in Iran has been brought down. Simply, the restoration of the internet would allow family members to be in touch, to seek those who are missing and to know more of what is happening. What representations are the Government making on that issue, which would bring some solace to so many deeply hurting families in this appalling situation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On the opening point about our lack of ability to understand just how many people have been killed so far, estimates range from 3,000 to many times that, and I think that, as information emerges, we will be horrified at what is revealed. He is also right to remind us of how vital communications infrastructure is, most principally, of course, through access to the internet. We want as much as anybody to see that restored. There is a reason that these things are removed by regimes at moments such as this, and it is not difficult to work out what that is—it is about hiding what is happening and preventing people from organising, communicating and supporting one another.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister commit that we will be unrelenting in working with like-minded nations in holding to account those who have been responsible for these atrocities, these massacres, on such a scale? Before the House debates the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression, on 26 February, will she undertake to go back and look at the evidence about the persecution of BBC Persian journalists, independent journalists and pro-democracy activists in this country, and at the current inquiry of the Charity Commission into one charity which has been promoting the IRGC and its narrative? Secondly, will the Minister look at the potential use of Wilton Park as a place to bring together the disparate elements who form the opposition—not least people such as Maryam Rajavi but also supporters of other groups—to see whether a proper alliance can be constructed of like-minded groups to promote democracy and the rule of law?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord on accountability, and we have used our position on the Human Rights Council to further that and to get missions in place to gather the facts that are needed. I will of course read what he suggests on transnational repression; it is incredibly important, and I will make sure that I do that. I have not looked at the Charity Commission issue that he raised, but I will commit to doing so. I welcome the suggestion around Wilton Park; it is a very useful opportunity to get people together in a closed environment to have the kind of conversations that can make a real difference to these situations.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the impression has been created that government policy has changed and that we are about to ban the IRGC or will do so at some point in the near future. Is that the case, or is it not, because some of us are starting to get a bit fed up with raising this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate the frustration that my noble friend feels and I would never seek to make him feel that way—I have known him for a long time and I know how he can get. All I can do is restate the position. We commissioned the review by Jonathan Hall, and we accept fully his recommendations, which are that we need a change to our legal framework in order to do that which the noble Lord wants to see happen. We are committed to doing that, because we need to do that first, and we have made that commitment. If he wishes to continue to push with urgency on that, it would not be an unhelpful role for him to play and I know that it is one that he will do well.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I echo and support the comments made by my noble friend on the Front Bench. For clarification, approximately 35,000 unarmed civilians have been slaughtered already in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the figures for injuries run at about 350,000, so we are not talking about 3,000 victims here; we are talking about very many indeed. The last Government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that that, clearly, was a difficult thing to do as well, so I cannot for the life of me see what additional complications there could be to proscribing the IRGC.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In that case, the noble Baroness could do a lot worse than read Jonathan Hall’s work, which explains this fully. We do need a legislative change. Clearly, this could have been done many years previously and was not considered at that point. Hizb ut-Tahrir was proscribed eventually and, obviously, we welcomed that. I would hope that we would get a welcome for the steps that we are taking regarding the IRGC as well.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, over the 34 years since Peter Mandelson was elected to Parliament, he has been disgraced and rehabilitated by successive Labour leaders. The Prime Minister brought him back into the fold for the final time as our ambassador to the United States. We now have a partial explanation of how Mandelson operated secretly. He and his partner were in receipt of electronic cash transfers from the notorious paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. As money and benefits in kind flowed their way, he casually passed state secrets back to his benefactor. Epstein’s crimes were appalling: paedophilia, sex trafficking and child prostitution. We must not forget his victims, who suffered at his hands and are still suffering today.
It is right that Mandelson is no longer a Member of your Lordships’ House. It is right that there will be an internal investigation into his behaviour. And it is right that the police will investigate any potential criminality. While Peter Mandelson’s conduct is deeply disappointing, it is the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint him as the UK ambassador to Washington that almost defies belief. Mandelson’s claim in the years preceding his appointment as ambassador to the United States had been that he did not continue his relationship with Epstein once the latter had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution. Thanks to the excellent work of the Financial Times, it was already public knowledge in 2023, before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, that this story was a lie. The Prime Minister now freely concedes that he was fully aware of this fact at the time that he appointed Mandelson.
I suspect that many in your Lordships’ House will, like me, find the Prime Minister’s decision to overlook this startling fact a complete dereliction of duty and an illustration of an appalling lack of judgment. The Prime Minister was under no pressure to appoint Mandelson. There were many able and distinguished career diplomats from whom he might have chosen—and, indeed, many able and distinguished career politicians, who, crucially, had not become embroiled in a disturbing private relationship with a known paedophile. I do not propose to ask the Lord Privy Seal to explain questions of conduct and judgment that the Prime Minister himself is seemingly incapable of explaining. Instead, I will focus on what we on these Benches feel ought to happen next.
Although it is clear that the Prime Minister disregarded the disturbing revelations made in the Financial Times, it is not presently clear whether the extensive security vetting to which Mandelson was subject had identified either the flow of payments from Epstein or the deeply compromising nature of the relationship between the two. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm whether officials in the UK sought information from the US Government on the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson? If so, what information was shared?
Separately, we are told that there will be an internal government investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has revealed publicly that he wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in September asking for a review of any further communications between Epstein and Mandelson, only to be told by way of answer that no relevant material had been identified. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House why, in light of this, the internal Cabinet Office investigation is being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary? Would it not be better for this investigatory process to be led by somebody who does not report to the Prime Minister and whom a former Labour Prime Minister has not essentially accused of a cover-up?
Yesterday, the other place voted to require the Government to lay before the House all papers relating to the ambassadorship appointment. That is essential if the Government are to regain trust after this sorry saga. The Government caveated the humble Address to exclude papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. Such material will instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses. Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that all relevant material will be made available to the ISC, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister will seek to use their powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to prevent that committee from publishing its findings in full?
It is not sufficient for any of these investigations to look only into historic behaviour or to focus solely on Mandelson’s links with Epstein. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Epstein was not the only rich man of dubious repute with whom Peter Mandelson was known to share a close friendship. We need to know how Peter Mandelson conducted himself while serving as our ambassador in Washington. Did this conduct continue there? Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that neither the Cabinet Office investigation nor the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prevented from looking into all evidence relating to how Peter Mandelson has conducted himself, including while serving as ambassador?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My honourable friend Lisa Smart said in the House of Commons yesterday:
“We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/26; col. 289.]
I agree with those words profoundly. One of the most upsetting elements of the release of the information from the United States has been the network of rich, wealthy, connected enablers, and the casual way in which they treated vulnerable girls and young women.
We agree with the Prime Minister on one element: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must proactively work with any authorities who may wish to take this forward. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has raised associated issues of how we make changes to uphold how we carry out our politics. I will refer to those in a moment. We called for the police to carry out investigations into Peter Mandelson’s activities, and are happy that they are now doing so, but we believe a public inquiry is now needed into the wider circumstances. We have raised that, and we hope the Government will accept the need for serious questions to be answered on not just process but judgment and actions.
A Minister said this morning to the media that, when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, the Government were relying on an established vetting process. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, as a civil servant, cannot reply in this House to questions that it has raised, but there are questions about securing independence in the process going forward and the role of the Cabinet Secretary. Any process must be conducted independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary.
We usually believe that enhanced vetting procedures for our most significant diplomatic postings should address whether the person who is being vetted lies. It is not acceptable simply for the Prime Minister to rely on the fact that Peter Mandelson lied; that is the point of an enhanced vetting process. But if elements of that process are set aside, because of either the relationship with or the judgment of the Prime Minister, we have to ask some very serious questions, especially as the Prime Minister knew of Peter Mandelson’s contact with a convicted paedophile and of their financial relationship, which had been reported as long ago as “Dispatches” programmes in 2019.
There is also a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest with Peter Mandelson and lobbying interests. Clear information was provided on using public office for public gain; why was this overruled in the appointment of him as our ambassador?
We welcome the Government’s change of heart on supplying information to the ISC, and we look forward to its work being carried out in a very speedy way. But we also believe that the Ministerial Code must be looked at very considerably now. There is little point in having a Ministerial Code that is self-policed by the Prime Minister if there are clearly conflicts of interest in those processes.
If Peter Mandelson had not resigned from this House, we have insufficient mechanisms of expulsion for those who bring the House into disrepute. These Benches called for action on this prior to the general election, and we do so again today. We will work with the Leader and across the House to bring about changes. We need to act now, before we are asked to do so, on the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, too. A self-regulating House needs to get its own house in order.
We also need to act immediately to remove Peter Mandelson from the peerage roll to stop him using that title for the future. Retirement from this House does not automatically mean removal from the peerage roll. It should be unacceptable for him to be able to trade on a peerage title in the future, which is allowed for if someone continues to be on the peerage roll. I checked this morning and he is still on it, so I would like to know if the Leader can indicate whether the Government are moving on that area.
We will also support the Government to accelerate any legislation to remove his peerage entirely. He cannot be allowed to trade on a title after betraying his own Government, this House and the public’s trust of someone who held public office. It is a privilege to serve in this House, not a right. There are obligations on someone who is on the peerage roll but insufficient means of correction, and they need to be addressed on a cross-party basis and urgently.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. At the forefront of all of our minds are those who were victims of a vile paedophile and how powerful people had a network in which there was no respect and it was almost as if they were casual playthings for their benefits. It is quite a horrendous thought, the consequences of which last for those young girls and women for the rest of their lives. They are often tragic consequences for them personally and for those who know them. I think a lot of this would never have come to light had it not been for their bravery in being prepared to stand up, be identified—which is a huge thing to do—and speak out. That has been at the forefront of my mind in all this, and it is one of the things that I find most distressing about it all.
On the noble Baroness’s questions on security vetting and investigations, as much as possible needs to be in the public domain. That is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee for taking on that role. Everything that is identified and deemed to be a matter of national security in some way will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
At the moment a lot of people are feeling very betrayed that their trust has been abused. The world outside basically thinks that you cannot trust any politician. We know from our work in this House—many of us have worked in politics for many years—that trust is the cornerstone of what we do, between and across parties. When that trust is betrayed, the people who feel it most keenly are often those who have put their trust in people who never earned it and did not deserve it. That is something for us all to reflect on going forward, which is why it is so important that information should be made as public as possible.
It is a completely understandable frustration that the police have said that some information cannot be released yet because of the integrity of their investigation. Information has been passed to the police but, if there is to be justice, particularly for victims, the police will have to decide what to do with that information. With that caveat, we will release the information when it is available, but it has been given to the police and to the ISC. We will do that as a matter of some urgency, and I give the noble Baroness that assurance, most definitely.
My only point of difference with the noble Lord is on a public inquiry—I am sure that will be looked at in due course—partly because of my experience of public inquiries. I initiated one as a Minister and it took something like 17 years to report. That length of time is completely and totally unacceptable to me. We have to do this quickly but thoroughly, and one should not compromise the other.
The noble Lord made some other points on vetting going forward. There is an established process, which was followed. If that process is found to be inadequate, it needs to be looked at.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness also raised an issue about who undertakes this. The Cabinet Secretary will at all times have the guidance of an independent KC on this, and will meet regularly with the ISC. The precise details of how that will happen have yet to be worked out, but the key is to ensure that all information is released. There is no desire on anybody’s part to try to hide something or cover it up; it has to be very transparent.
The noble Lord referred to lobbying interests and public office for profit. It is not just about the Ministerial Code; that was updated and this Prime Minister has strengthened it so that the adviser on this, the person in charge of the Ministerial Code, can initiate inquiries without reference to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given them that greater independence. But I think this goes beyond that. Some of the emails that we have read, about information being given to an individual who may or may not have used it—we do not know—need to be investigated further. That information is available to the police as part of their investigations.
The noble Lord also asked about our mechanisms in this House. Being a Member of this House is an immense privilege and honour. I remember being in the other place: to sit on those Benches, I had to face an electorate, knock on doors and talk to people. It was a long process, and I could be deselected and unelected—as I was. We do not face that in this House. We are appointed. At the moment, we are appointed for life unless we choose to retire, and we have a committee looking at the participation issue now and we may have a retirement age.
But I think we need to go further, and the Prime Minister has said this as well. If standards are such that we feel someone should not be a Member of this House, do we really think it is appropriate for them to retain that title for life? It is not appropriate and it should not happen. The Government are preparing that legislation, and I will work with all parties on bringing it forward. I want to ensure that we get this right. That is not a reason for delay; it is to ensure thoroughness. This may not be the only case that we ever have, and I want to ensure that this House can hold its head up in the future to ensure that we believe in the integrity of every single Member. Getting that right and ensuring that this legislation has a long-term sustainable application is really important, so I will bring that forward and we will discuss it.
The noble Lord also mentioned the Code of Conduct. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I wrote to him on Monday, in light of this, to ask him to look at our own Code of Conduct and whether we think it is fit for purpose. In our manifesto, we said that we would strengthen the circumstances for the removal of Peers who are disgraced. I am asking the committee to look at that in its work, and I think the whole House will want to work together on this. So there is work going forward, but we have to take responsibility for it as a House. If we fail to protect the integrity of the body, every single Member of this House will face those kinds of criticisms. I have great faith in this House and its Members but, if people let us down, they do not deserve the right to be here.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. The House wants succinct questions, getting in as many noble Lords as possible. The House does not want speeches—this is not the time.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has said, but I have two specific questions relating to Lord Mandelson. One is: why was he allowed to retain his shareholding in Global Counsel during the time he was ambassador to the United States? Who made that decision, and on what evidential basis was it made? The second point is: does the Minister really believe it is acceptable that I have asked three times since December—two months ago—whether Lord Mandelson received taxpayers’ funding via a severance payment when he was sacked as ambassador, and the Government have hitherto not answered the question? Is she now in a position to answer it? If so, how much of taxpayers’ money was given to this disgraced figure?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord: I do not have the answers to those questions for him, but I will get them. I do not think he has asked me about the severance pay, but I will ensure that he gets an answer. On the shareholdings, can I come back to him in writing? We will get an answer on both those points.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I have spent some of this morning looking at the US Department of Justice’s Epstein library. I note that the emails have a very matey tone and therefore obviously sit in a sea of emails over an extended period of time. Although these emails are obviously to a private email address of Peter Mandelson’s and are about market-sensitive things, there may well be emails about other things. I wondered, therefore, what steps were being taken to protect that email account and make sure that things are not being destroyed. I wondered also whether it would be sensible to contact the US Department of Justice, because it has quite a lot of other emails that it has not yet loaded on to the Epstein library, and there may well be other things of great interest.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I can assure the noble Earl that every effort has been made to protect all evidence and information that may be available. The Department of Justice has said that it has now downloaded all the emails from Jeffrey Epstein, but the noble Earl will understand that there are ongoing inquiries around those. I suppose the greatest assurance I can give him is that every effort will be made to get all relevant information, because, unless we have that relevant information, we cannot necessarily take appropriate action. So I can give him that assurance.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what role Peter Mandelson played as ambassador in convincing the American Government of the merits of the Chagos deal? Did he discuss it personally with the President and the Secretaries of State? In so doing, did he honestly tell them about the Pelindaba treaty, about the fact that we have an opt-out from juridical judgments of the ICJ, and other important matters, or did he, as was his custom, conceal the truth?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the issue of the Chagos Islands—which I know the noble Lord has strong feelings on—is not entirely relevant to the discussion we are having today, which I think is about the victims of a known paedophile and going beyond that. Obviously, an ambassador would have those discussions—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the noble Lord did not heckle from a sedentary position, as I want to try to answer his question. Obviously, an ambassador has ongoing discussions with the Administration during the time they are ambassador; other officials in the UK Government will be having those discussions with the American Government as well, and they are ongoing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note the Minister’s mention of the desperate need to re-establish political trust. I think all of us, on all Benches, need to understand how much Westminster politics is distrusted at the present moment and how we all, on all Benches, need to work together to restore that. Can she say a little more about what the Government plan to do on reforming the way Westminster and Whitehall work to restore public trust? There is a suggestion, for example, that, when Ministers take office, they should take oaths before the House to which they belong. On other measures, further reform of the House of Lords has also been mentioned. That would be welcome to know.
Can I also ask that the Government pursue the possibility of a Russian connection in this Epstein network? We know the Polish Government are very concerned about this. We see in the files the reference to a number of Russian connections—Russian women—involved. We have had substantial Russian penetration of British politics in the last 15 years. It may well be continuing, and we need to make sure, as we want to re-establish public trust, that we get it out in the open if it is still happening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will take the noble Lord’s last point first. All avenues of investigation are open. All information on the national security issues will be passed to the ISC so that those issues can be looked at in detail. I have to say that, with several million documents, I certainly have not been through all the emails, but I find those that I have read pretty unedifying and unpleasant to read. There are people whose job it is to go through all these, look at every possible link and get to the bottom of whatever has happened.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of political trust. If you think about the work this House does, most of it is painstakingly detailed work on legislation to try to get things right. I do not believe anyone in this House comes into public service to do a bad job, but, if things go wrong and Members do not reach the standards we would expect of them—and that the public would expect of us—then they abdicate their right to be here.
On the points the noble Lord makes about the Ministerial Code, for example, that has already been strengthened: there is an independent level that was not there previously. Previously, the Prime Minister of the day could decide if somebody had broken the code and should be investigated. Now, it is for the holder of that code to make that decision on an investigation, which I think is a big step forward.
Legislation is currently being drafted about removing peerages from those who should no longer be entitled to have them. There will be discussion on exactly what form that will take and how we do that. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we want to get that right so that we are, in a sense, future-proofing so that, should any circumstances arise in the future where we think someone should not just not be a Member of this House but not be entitled to hold a peerage, that can be done in a processed, fair way. But it has to happen, and I think we can all think of other examples where it should have happened.
How do we restore trust? If I knew the answer to that, they would probably make me Prime Minister. But it is a really serious point, because this has been going on for a very long time. Trust in politicians has been eroded over time, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. It does not actually matter why: we need to ensure that we do everything we can—that, in our parliamentary and public-facing lives, we behave in a way such that people feel they can give us the trust we feel we deserve. If we do not, we have to move out of the public arena.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will go to the Labour Benches next.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the comprehensive Statement from the Leader of the House, but may I raise just one issue? There seem to be some questions to be answered about the role of the Cabinet Secretary in this. Is it appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the role of the Cabinet Secretary, working with the KC, is to ensure that all available documents are made public, that what needs to go to the police does—some documents already have, and there may be others as more is investigated—and that others can be made public. So there is a role, but it is being overseen by an independent King’s Counsel. So there is a legal element to that to make sure that there is no possibility of information being withheld that should be in the public domain or referred to the ISC because it is a matter of national security.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will now have the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said about looking at whether the Code of Conduct needs to be strengthened. But would she agree with me that in this House we do have rules of behaviour, an independent investigative process, and sanctions available when those rules are broken? Would she further agree that the Code of Conduct binds every Member of this House—that binding is symbolised at the beginning of each Parliament by the signing of the Code of Conduct, but it applies all the time—and that it is very wide-ranging about behaviour and encompasses the seven principles of behaviour in public life, which cover a great many of the sorts of issues we are discussing today?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. As a self-regulating House, we have a Code of Conduct and there are rules of behaviour, an independent process and sanctions. Is it adequate? Does it meet the test that it needs to meet? Does it do the job we want it to do? Does it give confidence in this House to the public? Those are the questions we want to look at. At the moment, it is very difficult for a Member to be removed from this House and there are no powers to remove someone’s title. I can think of only one occasion when a Member of this House has been expelled from it, but I can think of a number where somebody has resigned to avoid being properly investigated or expelled. We may want to look at whether we are confident and satisfied that it meets the test that the public expect of us.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
The noble Baroness the Leader will recall that, when she was shadow Leader of this House, the Privileges and Conduct Committee spent several meetings considering a disrepute clause similar to the one proposed by the Prime Minister. Has she advised the Prime Minister that we might have had such a clause in place 10 years ago had she and the other Labour members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee not failed to support such a clause and voted against it at that time?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right up to a point. It was not just on that occasion, when she made proposals, but on several other occasions since. Her proposals, as I recall, went further than most people would go, because they went into private lives. She shakes her head at me, but that was the main issue of dispute at the time. We have looked at it again since; there were times when the Conservative Benches have not supported such a proposal. It is important to look at disrepute not just in somebody’s parliamentary work, but in their public life. For example, in the last few years, when I was Leader of the Opposition, I raised an issue with the then Lord Speaker where somebody in their public life as a Member of this House behaved in a way that many in the House at the time found completely appalling and reprehensible. We need to look at disrepute, but I do not think this is a matter for private lives. Others may feel differently. How we conduct ourselves not just in our work here but in public as a Member of this House is important. I would like the Conduct Committee to look at that.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I very much welcome the openness of the answers that my noble friend has been giving to what are very serious, important questions. I want to raise an issue that has not been raised. I happen to be very keen to avoid having an elected president in this country, and therefore to preserve the monarchy. Mandelson was not the only person affected by the disclosure of these papers. What action is being taken in respect of the damage to the Royal Family in the disclosure of these papers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been mentioned. One of the most disturbing things is this network of powerful people who seemed to think that they were above the law so it would not apply to them or they would not be found out. It is hard to know what is in somebody’s mind when they behave in this way. The noble Lord will be aware that he has been stripped of his titles and is moving out of royal accommodation to alternative private accommodation. His Majesty has been very firm on this and we support the way he has dealt with it. There are issues around the use of the Royal Lodge that are being looked at by the National Audit Office and work is being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee.
Nobody can be above the law. Lord Mandelson has resigned from this House, the King has agreed with the Prime Minister that he should not be a privy counsellor and we are looking at legislating so that people in this position should not keep titles. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lost his title and his privileges. This shows people that no one is above the law. That is important. The voices of the victims of powerful men and sometimes women were not heard when they should have been, and I hope that these actions go some way to ensuring that, in future, more notice will be taken of those who want to bring forward complaints.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to powerful individuals. We have to say it as it is. It was predominantly powerful men abusing not only women but children. We have to be very careful about language. I want to follow up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised around the sharing of sensitive information by Lord Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly around Poland and Russia. Have the Government assessed whether any further information was shared with other states and intelligence agencies? If so, will they disclose it? If that assessment has not been made, will they commit to carrying out that assessment as soon as possible to see whether other sensitive information was shared with other Governments across the world, friend or foe?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. His point about powerful individuals cannot be made often enough, and the impact this has had on the lives of very young people that will stay with them forever. On the sharing of sensitive information, he is right. This is a betrayal, not just of those whom Lord Mandelson was working with but a national betrayal. We do not know what damage could have been done, but certainly damage can be done when such information is shared. It is probably too early at this stage, with so many documents to go through and so many sources to try to retrieve documents from, to say exactly everything that is in there, but the Government are committed to transparency on this. We all need to know exactly what has happened. The documents in the public domain make unedifying reading. For those who were working in those areas at the time, to know that the conversations they had, the documents they signed and the decisions they took in the public interest were being relayed to somebody outside the very small number of people who should have known about them is a gross betrayal.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is now a matter of public record that, in February 2025, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to the Cabinet Secretary asking for an investigation into
“the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers regarding the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein”.
Did the Prime Minister know that his predecessor had made that request of the Cabinet Secretary? If he did not know, why was he not told? And if he did, why did he not instruct the Cabinet Secretary to undertake the investigation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those are important questions. I do not have the answers for the noble Baroness. I have seen the press reports that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom I worked very closely with, has asked for the information. I do not know what trawl was done. I do not know at this stage what the former Prime Minister asked for and whether the Prime Minister was informed, but I will find out.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation of what has been going on. I want to raise again the Cabinet Secretary’s role. About five years ago, I had reason to complain to the Cabinet Secretary about what I thought was a Minister in the Commons misleading Parliament, so I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to ask if he could investigate. The answer was: “No, I would have to get the Prime Minister’s approval first”. I said: “There is not much point, because I know what the Prime Minister will answer”. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a KC involved in the future work, but we have to be very careful about the relationship between the Cabinet Secretary and the then Prime Minister.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I do not know if he heard the answer I gave earlier, but it is now the case that it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to authorise an investigation into whether a Minister has broken the Ministerial Code. That is a matter for the holder of the Ministerial Code. So, on that point he would not have had that answer; today he would have a different answer and it would not be from the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This morning, the Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, has written to the Health Secretary expressing concern about the Palantir contract in the NHS. The papers have exposed the close relationship between Peter Mandelson and Palantir, and this disreputable company has caused a great deal of concern. I am not expecting the Minister to be briefed on the break clause that I believe occurs in that contract later this year, but my question is broader. The Government have had a very close relationship with US tech billionaires and their companies in the promotion of AI and the granting of contracts. Are the Government going to reassess, in the light of these papers, their relationship overall with US tech billionaires and their companies, and their close ties to the British Government?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If there is anything in the papers that warrants further investigation in other areas then the Government will obviously look at that. The noble Baroness has asked me to give her assurance that, because we know X has happened, we will therefore investigate every tech company. I cannot give her that assurance. However, if there is anything in these papers at all to indicate that further investigation to get to the truth is needed, that will be taken.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
“(4A) Before the appropriate national authority makes regulations under subsection (1) for the purpose of implementing a new international agreement, or significantly altering an existing agreement, the authority must conduct and publish a comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment.(4B) The Privacy Impact Assessment required under subsection (4A) must analyse and report on—(a) the necessity and proportionality of the information sharing arrangements,(b) the mechanism by which individual rights, including those under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, will be safeguarded,(c) the risks of non-compliance with the data protection legislation or of unintended consequences arising from the sharing of personal data, and(d) the nature and volume of personal data intended to be shared or accessed under the agreement.(4C) The appropriate national authority must lay before Parliament, no later than 12 months after the first regulations are made under this section, and annually thereafter, a report on the operation of regulations made under this section.(4D) The annual report required under subsection (4C) must include, in particular—(a) an assessment of the overall volume and categories of information shared under the regulations,(b) a detailed analysis of the impact of the regulations on the privacy and data protection rights of individuals, and(c) a summary of any internal reviews, audits, or legal challenges relating to information sharing under the agreements implemented by the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a privacy impact assessment to be carried out before regulations are made under this section.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 464 I will speak to Amendments 467, 468 and 503, in my name. These amendments collectively address the governance of Clauses 192 to 194, which grant the Secretary of State broad powers to make regulations giving effect to international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Following the recent passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, we are now operating in a new legal landscape, where the statutory threshold for protecting data transferred overseas has been lowered. These amendments are not just desirable; they are essential safety mechanisms to fill that gap.
Amendment 464 would be a safeguard of, so to speak, look before you leap. It stipulates that, before regulations are made under Clause 192 to implement a new international agreement, the authority must publish a comprehensive privacy impact assessment. The necessity of this assessment has intensified following the enactment of the Data (Use and Access) Act. The UK’s new test for onward transfers of data has lowered the bar. It no longer requires foreign protections to be essentially equivalent to ours, but merely not materially lower. This creates a dangerous new risk profile. The European Data Protection Board has explicitly noted that this new test omits key safeguards against foreign government access and removes redress mechanisms for individuals. If the general statutory floor has been lowered, Amendment 464 becomes the essential safety net. We must assess these specific risks via a privacy impact assessment before we open the digital borders, to ensure that we are not exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no legal remedy.
This brings me to Amendment 467, which addresses the nature of the data being shared. Where regulations authorise the transfer of highly sensitive personal data, such as biometrics, genetics or political opinions, this amendment would require enhanced protective measures. All this highlights the illusion of data protection when transferring data to high-risk jurisdictions that lack the rule of law. We know that in authoritarian states domestic intelligence laws will always override the standard contractual clauses usually relied on for data transfers. Because the Data (Use and Access) Act has removed the requirement for foreign safeguards to be essentially equivalent, we cannot rely on the general law to protect highly sensitive biometric or health data. My amendment would restore the requirement that transfers of such sensitive data must be demonstrated to be strictly necessary and proportionate. We cannot allow efficiency of data sharing to deny the reality that, in some jurisdictions, once data arrives, the state will have unrestricted access. Transparency must follow these powers.
Amendment 468 would mandate the production of an annual report on international law enforcement information sharing. This is vital because we are entering a period of divergence. The European Commission, at the urging of the European Data Protection Board, will be monitoring the practical implementation of the UK’s revised data transfer regime. If the EU will be monitoring how our data laws operate, surely Parliament should be doing the same. We need an annual report to track whether these law enforcement transfers are inadvertently exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no effective legal redress. Without this feedback loop, Parliament is legislating in the dark.
Finally, Amendment 503 would ensure that regulations made under Clause 192 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Given that the primary legislation governing data transfers has been loosened, it is constitutionally inappropriate for these specific law enforcement agreements to slip through via the negative procedure. Amendment 503 would ensure that these regulations, which may involve the transfer of our citizens’ most sensitive biometric data to foreign powers, must be actively debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
We support international co-operation in fighting crime, but it must not come at the cost of lowering our standards. These amendments would restore the safeguards that recent legislation have eroded. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendments and the importance that he has obviously placed on the right to privacy of the general public.
I support the principle behind Amendment 464. Sharing information often carries a risk with it, particularly when it is for the purposes of law enforcement, and especially when this is done internationally. Law enforcement data contains information that is far more personal to the individual or case in question than the norm. Any data of this sort must be handled with the highest discretion. Ensuring that the sharing of this data respects the right to privacy carries no unintended consequences and, most importantly, is necessary and should be the benchmark from which regulations are made.
If this amendment is accepted, I do not see the additional need for Amendment 468. At the very least, the privacy impact assessment under Amendment 464 should form the basis of any annual report that Amendment 468 would mandate. Less is more when it comes to admin and reports, so I am hesitant to support a new report that is not necessarily needed.
I think Amendment 467 is sensible. In general, internationally shared data should not include information prejudicial to any individual, let alone domestic citizens. This particularly extends to the sharing of biometric data for the purpose of unique identification or genetic identification.
These categories of data are obviously vital for the purposes of law enforcement, but law enforcement extra territorially risks placing this data in the wrong hands. This and similar data should therefore be particularly protected, which is the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope that the Minister can outline what the Government intend to do to ensure that the international sharing of personal data is undertaken in the most discreet and protected manner.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to kick off what I very much hope will be the last day in Committee—not to jinx it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the provisions in Clauses 192 to 194.
International law enforcement information-sharing agreements are a vital tool that provide law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality. To clarify, these measures provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement both new and existing legally binding international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement.
The UK is recognised globally for having one of the most robust data protection regimes, anchored in the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR, which ensure that privacy is protected even in the most complex areas of law enforcement and international co-operation. This Government are committed to maintaining these high standards and ways of working to ensure that data protection and privacy are not compromised as we strengthen cross-border security. UK law already requires data controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment for any activity that is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms. Public bodies and law enforcement authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act, and they must duly assess activities accordingly.
Existing data protection principles and statutory requirements, particularly data protection impact assessments, already cover the concerns raised by the noble Lord’s amendments, making new duties duplicative and unnecessary. As is required under Article 36(4) of the UK GDPR, regulations made under this power as they relate to the processing of personal data will require consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The international law enforcement information-sharing agreements preceding the making of regulations under Clause 192 are subject to the usual treaty ratification procedures, including the provisions regarding parliamentary scrutiny provided for in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Any such agreement will be laid before Parliament with an Explanatory Memorandum, which would include the background to why the Government are entering into the agreement, its implementation and a note of any existing domestic legislation and human rights considerations. Additionally, an overseas security and justice assistance assessment will be required. Introducing additional scrutiny requirements would risk duplication and provide no additional substantive information to Parliament beyond what is currently available.
We must also consider the operational sensitivity of such processing. Law enforcement data sharing involves sensitive systems and procedures. Publication of such assessments may inadvertently expose vulnerabilities or methods that criminals or adversarial parties may seek to exploit.
Ministers regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including data sharing. I have a long list of examples before me—I will not detain your Lordships with too many of them. The Cabinet Office issued the Government’s response to the EAC report Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU Relationship on 23 January this year and published it shortly thereafter. A couple of days before, on 21 January, my noble friend Lord Hanson appeared before the EAC to discuss the UK-EU reset, which focused on the LEJC, migration and the border partnership. You do not have to go far back for another example: on September 8, the Foreign Affairs Committee questioned the Cabinet Office and FCDO Ministers on post-summit implementation, co-ordination and future UK-EU co-operation frameworks. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to parliamentary oversight of these matters.
Law enforcement authorities and government departments work closely together to assess international law enforcement capabilities and their effectiveness. Such assessments, by their very nature, are operationally sensitive and would not be suitable for publication. Specifically singling out international law enforcement data sharing also risks presenting a skewed picture of wider domestic operational activity, given that law enforcement outcomes are often the result of multiple capabilities and instruments being used. Owing to the breadth of law enforcement authorities that may be engaged in such information-sharing activity, and the likely multiple data systems, sourcing and collating operational data that would be suitable for inclusion in a published annual report would create significant demand and risk diverting resource from other critical law enforcement priorities.
We must also consider the implications for the international parties to such agreements, who may have concerns about the publication of such data and assessment, particularly where it may relate to operationally sensitive matters. That, in turn, may affect and limit the negotiability of future agreements. Such reports could potentially expose operational practices that it may not be appropriate to place in the public domain. We must be mindful that agreements will vary in scope with international partners; to publish detail on the volumes of data exchanged may inadvertently cause concern from international partners on differing operating scopes.
Finally, as to whether regulations made under Clause 192 should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, I simply point the noble Lord to the report on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made no such recommendation. We are usually held to the high standards of that committee and admonished when it finds us wanting. In this case, we were not found wanting, which I think is a very good tick that I pray in aid.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about these clauses, but I hope that I have reassured him that data protection remains at the heart of our approach. With that in mind, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. It was very cheerful, which I find quite extraordinary in the circumstances. It is almost as though he has been reading Voltaire’s Candide: everything is for the best in all possible worlds. I will read carefully what he said, but there was an extraordinary amount of complacency built into his response about the nature of sharing data across borders—specifically that the existing regime is sufficient to safeguard these transfers and that my amendments would introduce unnecessary friction into law enforcement co-operation. That is because the rules of the game have changed since the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
The Information Commissioner can operate only within the legislation provided, which is no safeguard in those circumstances. I have the highest regard for the Information Commissioner and his office, but they have to operate within the bounds of the law, which have changed since the Act was passed. I mentioned the European Data Protection Board and so on. The Minister has performed some kind of parliamentary jujitsu by seeming to say that sensitive data, which I cited as being one of the reasons why I tabled my amendments, makes it far too difficult to do what I am proposing. I admire his speechwriting but I must say that I do not think that is an answer.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I believe that the Act that we spent so long debating has changed the rules of the game and that these amendments are necessary to ensure that international co-operation does not become a backdoor for the erosion of privacy. I will come back to this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my late friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness had originally laid this proposal that Clause 195 should not stand part. I had signed it to support him because of my interests in human rights. His untimely death last week means that I am now leading on something that he, as an excellent lawyer, really understood and cared about. We shall in this debate, when we get into the detail, miss his incisive legal mind, combined with a passion for fairness and the rule of law. We miss him so much already. I am not a lawyer, but I will do what I can. I thank the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum, or DELF, for its help and advice in the last few days, as well as its excellent technical briefing, from which I shall quote.
The core of asking that Clause 195 not stand part is straightforward. It would remove the right for a retrial following a conviction in absentia where the person convicted is deemed to have been present, even if there has been no contact between that person and their court-approved lawyer. As ever, there is more in the detail. Clause 195 proposes to amend Sections 20 and 85 of the Extradition Act, governing extradition following convictions in absentia. Following a stakeholder symposium convened in January, DELF identified material inaccuracies in the Government’s stated justification for the clause. Unfortunately, there are consequences as a result of these inaccuracies that will have serious implications for individuals facing extradition in future.
In the Government’s justification for Clause 195, they said that the proposed amendments
“ensure compatibility between UK domestic legislation and the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.
Article 601(1)(i) of the TCA, which governs convictions in absentia, already aligns with Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. Those safeguards, grounded in fundamental rights, reflect the carefully calibrated EU extradition framework, strengthened in 2009 to enhance protections for convictions in absentia. It sought to promote legal certainty and mutual recognition while respecting differing national legal systems. The problem is that Clause 195 risks making UK legislation inconsistent with the TCA in two material respects, thereby undermining the reforms advanced by the UK in 2008-09.
First, Article 601(1)(i)(iii) of the TCA permits refusal of extradition where a person did not deliberately absent themselves for a trial in absentia unless they have a right
“to a retrial or appeal … which allows the merits of the case … to be re-examined”.
That standard is reflected in Section 20 of the Extradition Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, but Clause 195 would dilute this safeguard by reducing it to a mere “right to apply” for a retrial, thus weakening protections previously secured across Europe.
Secondly, Article 601(1)(i)(ii) of the TCA deems a person present at the trial only where they have
“given a mandate to a lawyer … to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that lawyer at the trial”.
However, new subsection (7A) in Clause 195 will weaken this protection, treating a person as present solely by virtue of their legal representation, even where there has been no contact or instruction between lawyer and client.
There is further concern over the Government’s inaccurate statement that the
“interpretation … changed as a result of … Bertino and Merticariu”.
The Supreme Court did not create new law by distinguishing between a right to retrial and a mere right to apply for one. Rather, it affirmed the settled meaning of “entitled”, endorsing established authority, which made it clear that entitlement does not mean “perhaps” or “in certain circumstances”. In doing so, the court in that case overturned the conflicting decision in BP v Romania 2015, which had erroneously treated a discretionary right to apply for a retrial as sufficient, having misapplied case law on procedural requirements that do not undermine a genuine entitlement.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling this clause stand part notice. I would like to add my reservations about this clause.
First, I am concerned that this clause has not received sufficient scrutiny and consideration by Parliament. It was added on Report in the other place on 17 June last year. The Minister moving the new clause dedicated only 255 words to explain its effect and it was not mentioned by a single other Member. It has not received adequate attention. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has tabled this amendment to allow us to press the Government on the measures they are proposing.
The second point is the potential impact this clause could have on the right to a fair trial for British citizens. Under Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, where a person has been convicted in another country, the judge at the extradition hearing must first decide whether the person has been convicted in their absence and then decide whether the person deliberately absented themselves from the trial. If the judge is satisfied that the person was convicted in absentia and did not deliberately absent themselves from the trial, the judge must determine whether the person would be entitled to a retrial or to a review that amounts to a retrial in the territory to which the person would be extradited. If the judge does not believe that the person would be entitled to a retrial if extradited, the judge must discharge the prospect of extradition.
The Supreme Court in the recent cases of Bertino and Merticariu distinguished between the right to a retrial and the right to apply for a retrial. The court has held that a person’s entitlement to a retrial does not simply mean the person “might” be entitled to a retrial but that they “must” be entitled. This means that a conditional entitlement to a retrial that is dependent upon the finding of the court in the requesting country is insufficient for extradition to proceed. This places a decision on whether a fair trial can be had firmly in the hands of British judges. That is surely right. It is plainly preferable for the determination of the ability for a retrial to take place to be undertaken by a British judge, as opposed to merely relying on the decision of a foreign court.
However, in Clause 195, the Government are seeking to overturn this ruling, thereby removing a key safeguard against unfair extradition. If this clause is brought into force, the judge in Britain would have to order a person’s extradition on the simple assertion by the requesting country that the person could be permitted to stand trial in person, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.
Let us imagine a person who was tried in absentia and was not aware of their conviction in another country. If they were extradited and not permitted a retrial, they would not have been able to stand up in court and defend themselves against the charges they had been accused of. That is surely a recipe for serious injustice. In short, I am concerned that this clause will lead to more British citizens being extradited on the whim of a foreign judge and not afforded the right to a fair trial. For this reason, I very much support the proposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the clause should not stand part.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying how sorry I am that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, moving her proposition and not Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who we will greatly miss. As we all know, he was a staunch advocate for the people of Orkney and Shetland. I served nine years with him in Parliament, as we crossed over during that time, and found him to be an exemplary public servant as Deputy First Minister for Scotland and as a Member of Parliament. I had less contact with him in your Lordships’ House and I am genuinely sorry that I cannot have contact with him today. I pass my condolences to his family. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Brinton for taking up the cudgels on this specialist subject and doing it in a way that is professional. I promise that I will try to answer the questions and follow up on the points she has raised.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of the constituency case of Paul Wright in Mold, which I dealt with in a former life as Paul Wright’s Member of Parliament, following the extradition case with Greece. I will have to google it to refresh all the details in my memory, but it was an important constituency case for me to take up as a Member of Parliament at that time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, feels that this did not receive sufficient scrutiny, but I take his point, and I hope I can answer his points today.
Clause 195 standing part of the Bill means that, under the Extradition Act 2003, the UK may extradite individuals either to face trial or serve a sentence. Where a conviction occurred in absentia and the UK court finds the person did not deliberately absent themselves, the judge must determine whether they will be entitled to a retrial in the requesting state. This clause will amend Sections 20 and 85 of the 2003 Act to restore the original policy intention that the individual must have a right to apply for a retrial, not a guaranteed retrial, for extradition to proceed. The amendment is required, as the noble Baroness mentioned, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Merticariu v Romania, which interpreted the current drafting of the 2003 Act as requiring a guaranteed retrial—something some states cannot offer. Without this fix, certain legitimate extradition requests could be blocked, undermining justice for victims.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned this, but the amendment itself does not change any existing safeguards or processes governing extradition. The full suite of safeguards in the 2003 Act, including judicial oversight and human rights protections, remains unchanged. This includes the UK court’s powers to consider and determine whether someone deliberately absented themselves. I hope that gives her some reassurance.
The small government Amendment 537 makes minor drafting changes. It simply provides that Clause 195 will be commenced by regulations, as opposed to automatically coming into force on Royal Assent, as was originally planned.
I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said and I have heard the complex case that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether she could have a meeting with appropriate supporters to discuss this and I would be happy to do so. For the purposes of confirming that, I would be grateful if she could email me the details of who she wishes to attend that meeting. It is entirely up to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I would be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to attend—or I could offer him a separate meeting if he wants to have further discussions or representations. If that can be discussed outside Committee, I would be happy to do that.
In the meantime, I hope the reassurances I have given are sufficient for the moment. I would be happy if the noble Baroness would withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part, pending any discussion, which I will ensure takes place if possible—subject to our diaries—before Report, as appropriate. If not, we can still have the discussion, so that we can at least reflect on the points that have been made today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for speaking in support of the clause not standing part, particularly for speaking about the very short time that it had for debate in the Commons, which obviously did not have the chance to go through some of the detail that DELF has provided for us in this Committee.
I also thank the Minister. He is, as ever, courteous and thoughtful. I am not sure we have closed the gap between where I believe that there are problems and where he and his officials think that this is all resolved. Therefore, I am very grateful for the offer of a meeting. I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wanted to join us. I will indeed email him names, but in the meantime I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Age of criminal responsibilityIn section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, for “ten” substitute “14”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from ten to 14 years so that no child under that age could be tried for or convicted of a criminal offence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 469 is in my name and the names of the noble and learned Baronesses, Lady Butler-Sloss and Lady Hale of Richmond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I ask Members of the Committee to think back to when they were 10—if that is not too difficult. Perhaps they were studying the Victorians in primary school. If so, they might have been astonished to learn that children of any age, even younger than 10, could be prosecuted in the 19th century. But there was an important nuance; even in the Victorian Juvenile Offenders Act 1847 and its spiritual successors, the Children Act 1908 and the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 and 1963, there was a presumption of doli incapax—that children below 14 are inherently incapable of forming criminal intentions. This had to be rebutted beyond reasonable doubt by any individual prosecution. This is the very thing that will have spared many of us from criminalisation at tender ages for our misdemeanours in formative years. Of course, most of us also have the safeguards of loving, diligent parenting and/or class privilege.
When we foregrounded this debate in an Oral Question just over two weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Watts, who is not currently in his place, in his own inimitable style, suggested that my concern about our low age of criminal responsibility was somehow a middle-class preoccupation. I agree that class is relevant to this question, but, with respect to my noble friend, his analysis is rather upside down. It is not children on the playing fields of our famous public schools who are likely to be referred to the police for the fisticuffs, minor thefts and criminal damage that is almost inevitable in early years; it is instead the poorest and most vulnerable, such as children in care, who are also preyed upon by groomers and exploiters, and even blackmailed with the threat of being reported to the police by their abusers.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said. This is the third time that I have tried to raise the age of criminal responsibility in this House. I tried first in the Blair Government and lost. I tried the second time in the coalition Government and lost. On each occasion, I asked for a modest increase, to 12. I would be content with 12, but I would naturally prefer 14. It is very sad, but I just wonder whether every Government, of whichever political persuasion, are so afraid of the press and the press headlines that they are not prepared to change the law. Some years ago, the four children’s commissioners of the United Kingdom wrote a joint report in which they said that the United Kingdom is the most punitive country in the whole of Europe. That has not changed.
I tried two relevant cases: the first was on the anonymity of the Bulger killers, aged 10; the second was Mary Bell, aged 10. I do not know whether noble Lords know that the two Bulger killers, aged 10, had found a pornographic video hidden under the bed of the father of one of them, and they watched it. It was a story of how to kill a small child after painting the child blue. Those two little boys went out and did exactly what the film had shown. That seems to me to be highly relevant to considerations. It was an appalling crime; there is no doubt about that, but one does really need to think—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has reminded us—about the maturity of the brain, which is not properly completed by the age of 10, and is only still partly completed by the age of 14. There is substantial evidence that one Government after another absolutely refuse to recognise.
Ten is very young. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, let us think back to when we were 10—I find that particularly difficult at my age. One bears in mind one’s children or one’s grandchildren, how they behaved and the extent to which they really understood, not perhaps between right and wrong—I would hope they did—but the consequences of what they have done or might do. That seems to be something that is gained later in life than the age of 10.
One point that noble Lords might be concerned about is what would happen to a 10 year-old if they committed a really serious offence, particularly murder, with which I have been twice concerned. The fact is that Section 45 of the Children Act 1989 would send such a child who was a danger to him or herself or to others to secure accommodation. I am a patron of an admirable secure accommodation unit in Exeter. Every child in that unit has at least two carers, and some who are particularly troublesome have three. They are properly educated and looked after in a way that would of course happen to a child convicted of an offence; they would be sent nowadays to secure accommodation.
Mary Bell, however, was sent to prison. The very humane Member of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, arranged that the Bulger killers should not go on to an adult prison; they in fact left at the age of 18. Noble Lords might be interested to know the reason why I gave anonymity to those two young men. I received evidence from the police, sitting as a judge, that there were vigilantes out there determined not just to injure them, but to kill them. There was substantial evidence that there were groups of vigilantes in various parts of the country. That was why I gave them anonymity. I ask the Minister to reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have said: 10 is very young.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has brought me to this point after watching the deliberations on this. I was someone who, through multiple decades of youth work in particular and community work, was reluctant to do this, but I feel that it is the right thing to do. I just note a few things that would need to happen to make this effective and safe for the wider public.
I have dealt with many gang-involved young men, in particular. There are groups of young men whose sole job is to recruit for those gangs. Sometimes, with our criminal age of 10 being so low, it has made a number of children safer because it has kept them away. If you raise that age, it means that those recruitment people can go around saying, “You’re okay. You can’t be prosecuted, you can’t go to court and you can’t get in trouble”. If we are going to make this change, it needs to be sounded very clearly that there is still a route for you to get in trouble—that it is very important.
The more important piece, I would argue, is to look at how the Metropolitan Police now approach all young children; it views them as a victim first and it is very reluctant to move them into being a criminal without some very serious evidence—that approach needs to be embedded somewhere alongside this change. However, I make the point that there are a number of 10 year-olds—there are not millions of them out there, but there are enough in some of our poorest communities—who are sophisticated enough to be a real danger.
If we are going to make this change, we should make sure that, alongside it, we still have a way to affect the behaviour of those young children, in particular around bullying. If we remove supervision from them—often, supervision from the police is the only thing that carries enough weight in their own mind—they become a serious source of bullying and can cajole other children into breaking the law.
While I will support the amendment, I have been moved to this position only very recently, because it has had to fight against multiple years of experience of dealing with some young children who are very criminally involved, deliberately so. I still see the noble Baroness’ point, but I make a plea to the Minister to make sure that measures are put in place to keep the community safe and to identify young people early, not labelling them as criminals but dealing with their ability to bully and cajole other young people.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 469, and I have listened with great care to the persuasive argument presented by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whom I think I can also refer to as a noble friend. I have also been briefed by Justice, a body that I have the highest respect for; indeed, I have been a member of Justice—I think I joined in 1964—for up to 60 years.
I accept the widespread view in other countries that the age for findings of criminality should be 14 years, which is the proposition in Amendment 469. I accept also that Scotland has recently raised the age of criminality from eight years to 12 years. We should also take into account the alarming increase in crime committed by young children going down to the age of nine years, and even lower. I read, for example, from Home Office statistics, which record that 9,544 offences were committed by children aged nine or younger in 2024. That is a rise of 30% on the 7,370 under-10 crimes recorded in 2019, before the pandemic, and an 18% rise on the total for 2022 of 8,064. They range, alarmingly, over crimes concerning rape, arson, stalking, attacking police, making death threats and drug and racially motivated offences—that is for nine year-olds. In Cheshire recently, police faced an attempted murder suspect who was too young to go before the courts. I take full account of all that.
However, I have a sense of unease in raising the age of criminality from 10 to 14 years. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the case relating to two year-old James Bulger, of February 1993. I need not go into the full facts, but it suffices to say that in a shopping centre in Bootle in Merseyside, a little boy, two year-old James Bulger, was separated from his mother and was met by two other boys, 10 year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They proceeded to take him away, eventually to a railway line, where they committed the most horrendous murder of that little boy. Following that, they were tried and convicted in November 1993 and in June 2001 were released from prison on licence. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has dealt with their anonymity following their release.
The record is that—and I think this is very relevant—Robert Thompson is not known to have been a reoffender, but not so with Jon Venables. He has had multiple convictions, including for child pornography. He is currently in prison and recently, in 2023, bail was refused because he still posed a danger and a risk to the public. As I said, I have expressed my unease about this.
The only further comment I make on the horrendous case relating to poor two year-old James Bulger is that it is not the only recorded crime of horrendous behaviour by young persons. I recall reading in the newspaper of the recent murder of a pensioner, and I am fairly sure that it was underage children who were responsible for that. I also recall reading in the newspapers of the murder of a homosexual in a public park. Again, if I recall correctly, underage children were involved, including a young girl.
Juvenile crime, I suggest, should be kept on the record. It was highly relevant in the case of Jon Venables that it should be kept on the record. Perhaps we could make an exception for the very serious crime that I have outlined to your Lordships. But one way or another, that record of criminality should remain with the juvenile.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am not going to repeat the wonderful presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. There is a sentiment in me which wants to go a long way with some of the things we have said. I listened quite intently to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the arguments were what I call suitable for a seminar, in that you can look at all sides of them. I am persuaded that some children may need greater care and support. It is quite possible that those who exhibit criminality could be helped and end up in a different place. Certainly, listening to the wonderful presentation by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the cases that she has tried, I do not think anyone could say a 10 year-old can commit a crime—that would be very strange. If they have committed a crime, they have committed a crime, and in questions of criminality it is not simply a matter of the law, because, say, you are, like me, an older man at nearly 77. In all of us, there is a propensity to be saintly and holy, but also a darkness which you have to deal with.
I am not uneasy about children having a criminal record if they have committed a crime; I am uneasy about the way they are then treated. We heard from the noble and learned Baroness about making sure that their identity is not put out in the public domain, because there will be vigilantes who want to terrible things to young children. On the fact that a judge took a decision on their being taken to another prison, there are appropriate ways of punishing people without feeling that all punishment must be the same because the nature of the crimes is like those of other criminals. I would have a thought that, with a child such as Thompson or Venables, and considering what they did to young James Bulger, you need to find appropriate ways of dealing with their safekeeping and providing help, but not in the same way as you would treat a John Sentamu. For instance, if I commit a terrible crime, although I am 77, I should be answerable to the rest of the population. The way we handle children often leaves a lot to be desired.
I was a chaplain in a remand centre, and some of those young people had committed horrendous crimes. When you looked back, nearly 99% of their habits had been learned from adults; it was not that they were dreaming of doing these terrible things. It was a borstal for the young, so I take on the arguments made. On the arguments about children that the noble Baroness gave us, I do not think it is a question of age. I do not know how their brains work, although that might help in terms of sentencing, but for me it is not a question of age.
During the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, we went to Wales, and we—and William Macpherson, who was the chair of the inquiry—were shocked that children as young as six were committing some of the most horrendous racist incidents. By the way, we call it the Stephen Lawrence inquiry but the rest of the population do not say that. They keep on calling it the Macpherson inquiry. It is not that; its title is the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Again, you looked at the parents and they were not responsible. It was a group enterprise. Kids in school were learning the language and there was not enough information to help them understand that behaving like that is not going to help them.
We as a nation should take the view that all children belong to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure we create an environment in which they are going to be helped. Locking them up and throwing away the key cannot be acceptable where children are concerned, no matter what crimes they may have committed. We should examine, in the streets where we live, how well we have helped and supported children.
I ask the Minister, as we have matters that need to be taken seriously, to consider whether it is best to do this through this Bill, or whether it would be better to arrange a seminar to examine the issue before Report, and find out what would be best for our children, instead of applying the unhelpful label “criminal” or deciding that a threshold of 14 or 12 will do it, because kids as young as seven can do some terrible things. We should put our hand on our hearts and say that maybe, as a society, we need to do much better.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
It is important to recognise the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, in relation to the problems of gangs in London, but I do not believe that that should be the reason why we should not make a change.
There are three things one can say very quickly. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has dealt at length with the enormous improvement in understanding the development of the mind and the enormous scientific advances that have been made. Across the criminal justice system, we generally are very bad at adapting to science.
Secondly, it is right to pay tribute to the Youth Justice Service across England and Wales. It has improved, and we now deal with youth crime and young people in a much more humane and civilised manner than we did 20 years ago. The number in places like Feltham has fallen enormously, and thank goodness it has. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been there, but it is a terrible place, and you do not want to send people there, particularly young people.
Thirdly, this was an issue I looked at when chairing the Commission on Justice in Wales. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, that he is not to worry: I am not making a devolution point now, but I will come back to that at Report. However, I will say that the commission that examined this issue was firmly of the view that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12, having heard a lot of evidence. It seems to me that this is something we cannot kick into the long grass again. We must recognise change, and we should make it now.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord may recall from his days at the Bar that the juvenile courts were very sensitive to their role; that the judge and the counsel did not wear wigs; that the young offender was not kept in the dock, but was placed alongside his lawyers, and so forth. So we have, stretching back a long way, been very sensitive when trying juveniles.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as a former trustee of UNICEF, I rise to support Amendment 469, so clearly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and signed and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Internationally, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is recognised as 12, and UNICEF has always been clear that it should be 14. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, said, and understand his concerns about the very large number of young people and children being groomed and pulled into criminal gangs. He is right to say that we need more concerted support in terms of police, education and youth work intervention, but it is not the children’s—younger children’s—fault that they have ended up there. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, recognised that heinous crimes needed to be marked in a certain way, but both also commented on the fact that we needed to understand that these were children. I am really grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Your Lordships’ House has been discussing this for many, many years and as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, she was campaigning on this long before she came into Your Lordships’ House. Now is the time; we need change. We need to do that because there is so much evidence now.
In 2011, Nicholas Mackintosh, who chaired the Royal Society study on brain development, told the BBC then that there was
“incontrovertible evidence that the brain continues to develop throughout adolescence”,
and that some regions of the brain, responsible for decision-making and impulse control, do not mature fully
“until at least the age of 20”.
That Royal Society report cited the
“concern of some neuroscientists that the … age of criminal responsibility in the UK is set too low”.
We are still discussing it today.
UNICEF’s view is that 14 should be the minimum age, using scientific research as a base, but it is very specific that no country should have the age below 12. This places England, Wales and Northern Ireland in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is bad enough, but the real problem is a court system that assumes that children have capacity to make decisions when all the research shows that that is not reliable. It is wrong for a Government to assert that any interference with a child’s human rights can be justified.
UNICEF says in its excellent guidance note on youth offending published in 2022, that children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility,
“should not be considered (alleged) child offenders but, first and foremost, children in need of special protection”.
It says that offending behaviour by such children
“is often the result of poverty, family violence and/or homelessness … their involvement in offending behaviour is an indicator of potential vulnerability that has to be addressed by the social welfare system. Special protection measures for children … should address the root causes of their behaviour and support their parents/caregivers. The measures should be tailored to the child’s needs and circumstances and based on a comprehensive and interdisciplinary assessment of the child’s familial, educational and social circumstances”.
That matches the advice of the medical specialists too. Frankly, it is time that the Government stepped up and took the brave decision that we need to recognise that we are out of kilter with the rest of Europe and, frankly, most of the world.
Prosecuting children and holding them in young offender institutions does not give them the time and space to learn how to live their lives differently. We have heard from both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about how the arrangements work for children in specialist secure accommodation. We can still use those systems but without giving children the label of being a criminal when, clearly, they are not capable of making the right decisions.
I am really grateful to my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has been campaigning on this particular issue for decades before he came into your Lordships’ House in 1997. His Private Member’s Bill in 2017 resulted in a wide public discussion. It is a shame that, nine years on, we have not progressed further. Let us do so now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 14. For the reasons I will set out below, I am unable to support it.
First, the purpose of the age of criminal responsibility has not been designed to criminalise children unnecessarily. Rather, it is to ensure that the state can intervene early and proportionately when a child’s behaviour causes serious harm. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Levitt, the Minister, stated in this House, setting the age at 10 allows the justice system to step in at a point where intervention can prevent further offending and protect both the child and the wider public, and, crucially, children are not treated as adults. They are dealt with through youth courts under a distinct sentencing framework with rehabilitation as the central aim.
The evidence shows that the system already uses this power sparingly. We are told that, in 2024, only 13% of all children sentenced were aged between 10 and 14, and that proportion has been falling year on year. Of the 1,687 sentences imposed on children in that age group, just 23 resulted in custody. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that the age of criminal responsibility being set at 10 does not mean routine criminalisation of children. It means retaining a backstop for the most serious and persistent cases while diversion remains the norm.
Raising the age to 14 would create a dangerous gap. It would mean that children aged 10 to 13 who commit grave offences—including serious violence, sexual offences or sustained harassment—could not be held criminally responsible. This would limit the state’s ability to manage risk, protect victims and, in some cases, protect the child. There are rare but tragic cases—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Section 44 of the Children Act deals with children who are a danger to themselves and to others. The only difference in the criminal court is that it comes through the family proceedings court, but in fact the local authority would have to deal with it and the child would be put into secure accommodation. I wonder whether the noble Lord could take that on board.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that. I do not dispute that fact; I quite accept it.
There are rare but tragic cases, such as the murder of James Bulger, where a criminal justice response is unavoidable and undoubtedly in the public interest.
I respectfully suggest that international comparisons cited in this debate are far from straightforward and can sometimes serve to confuse matters. In fact, certain countries are now moving in the opposite direction. Sweden, for example, is proposing to lower its age in response to gang exploitation of children who know that they cannot be prosecuted. That underlines a key point. If the threshold is set too high, it can incentivise adults to use children as instruments of crime.
It is also worth noting that, although Scotland recently raised the age of criminal responsibility, Scotland’s experience should not justify this amendment. Even after deciding the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from eight years old, Scotland raised the threshold to 12 and not to 14. The Scottish Government also retained extensive non-criminal powers to respond to serious harmful behaviour. This amendment would go significantly further without clear evidence that such a leap would improve outcomes for children or public safety.
It is worth noting that a number of Commonwealth countries retain the doctrine that a child is considered incapable of wrongdoing, which was abolished in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many of those jurisdictions, the standard age of responsibility is similar to ours. Australia, for example, has a standard age of criminal responsibility of 10 years old, but a rebuttable presumption exists up to the age of 14. However, I should also stress that, simply because other countries may have higher ages than England and Wales, that is not, in and of itself, a justification to alter ours. We must ensure that the age of responsibility here is suitable for our needs—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Before the noble Lord leaves the question of international comparisons, can he confirm that in Sweden the proposal is to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13, rather than leaving that unsaid?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot confirm that, but I will certainly have a look at it.
The question is not whether children should be protected but whether removing the ability to intervene criminally until 14 years old would make children, victims or communities safer. I do not believe that it would. The current system already prioritises proportionality and rehabilitation, while retaining the capacity to act when it is absolutely necessary. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has a long and honourable record of raising issues on behalf of some of the most vulnerable in society. She and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, make a formidable team when moving this amendment. I am very grateful to them for ensuring that this important issue remains at the forefront of every Government’s mind, including this one.
It was about a fortnight ago that your Lordships’ House debated this issue in response to my noble friend’s Oral Question. I said at the time, and repeat today, that the age of criminal responsibility is a complex and sensitive issue. I want to take this opportunity to set out in a bit more detail than the Oral Questions format allows why the Government believe that we should keep the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in what I felt was a very thoughtful debate. Though it is invidious to do so, I would like to single out two contributions in particular.
The first is the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. It is quite a big thing to come to Committee and say, “I have listened. I still have concerns, but I have changed my mind in the face of an argument from the opposite side of the aisle”. I pay tribute to him for that, remembering that it was his party, not mine, that took us into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the first place. I am very grateful to him. He does great credit to his party and this House.
I must thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for a lifetime of public service and of considerable distinction at the Bar, on the Bench and in your Lordships’ House. It was she who gave the answer to the legitimate concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, about what would fill the gap in relation to dangerous and bad behaviour by young children if they were not to be criminalised: they would be dealt with in the family court and would be supervised and treated with a welfare approach, rather than a criminal justice one.
I thank everyone. I am obviously disappointed to some extent with my noble friend the Minister’s response, but I hope that the door is not slammed closed. I understand that a Back-Bench amendment is not necessarily the way to deal with something of this complexity and magnitude. However, I note, for example, that the Bar Council of England and Wales is currently conducting a commission into the age of criminal responsibility. I hope that, if the Government do not engage with it, they will at least watch those developments very carefully. This amendment was tabled on the basis of an age of 14; I may consider returning on Report with the proposition of age 12. For now, at least, and with thanks, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Safeguards against abuses by Covert Human Intelligence Sources(1) Section 27 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This Part applies to criminal conduct—(a) under an authorisation under this Part, and(b) where the conduct is in accordance with the authorisation.”.(3) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) This part also applies to civil liability in relation to any conduct which—(a) is incidental to any conduct within subsection (1), and(b) is not itself conduct an authorisation or warrant for which is capable of being granted under a relevant enactment and might reasonably have been expected to have been sought in the case in question. (2A) If a person acts in accordance with a criminal conduct authorisation under section 29B (covert human intelligence sources: criminal conduct authorisations), the nature of that authorisation and compliance with it shall be considered and deemed relevant to—(a) any decision as to whether prosecution for a criminal offence by that person is in the public interest,(b) any potential defences to such charges of criminal conduct, and(c) any potential civil liability on the part of that person, and the quantum of any damages.(2B) The protections in subsection (2A) only apply where the conduct is not carried out for the primary purpose of—(a) encouraging or assisting, pursuant to sections 44 to 49 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (incohate offences), the commission of an offence by, or(b) otherwise seeking to discredit,the person, people or group subject to the authorised surveillance operation.”.”Member's explanatory statement
These amendments replace provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as amended by the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act 2021 granting complete advanced criminal and civil immunity for authorised operatives and agents, with a public interest defence as long as they did not act as agents provocateurs.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am trying the patience of the Committee, but Amendment 470 is in my name.
In a week when our entire politics is reeling from the betrayal, treachery and most likely serious criminality of a now disgraced Peer, I hope we might all empathise with victims of abuses of power by covert human intelligence sources—CHIS—or police or other agency spies. Notwithstanding the ongoing public inquiry into the decades-old spy cops scandal, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 granted prior and absolute criminal and civil immunity to officers and agents of a whole host of public bodies if acting under a new scheme of pre-authorisation to commit crime. By this one Act, the centuries-old principle of equality before the law was breached.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. To me, it is the most important amendment to the Bill, and she laid out fully why it is so needed. As she said, this will be about trust in the police, and without this sort of regulation, that trust will be lacking—especially given the spy cops inquiry, which I have been following. That inquiry led me to want to put my name to this amendment, particularly because it has been going on for 10 years, involving three judges, and we should now have the lessons from it. If it had wound up, we would have had the lessons from that inquiry, and this amendment fills a bit of the gap from not having them.
The problem with that inquiry is that quite a lot of it is held in secret and a lot of the transcripts are heavily redacted, so it is very difficult for a Member of your Lordships’ House to follow, as I have tried to, what the lessons will be. For those reasons, we should support this amendment, even if it is just a stopgap until that inquiry eventually reports. That could be years from now, so I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 470, which I, too, have signed. I agree with every word that we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Miller. This references a deep vein of misogyny that existed then in the Met police—and I suspect it still exists, in spite of all the promises to the contrary. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is so calm; it always astonishes me how calm she stays when I know she feels exactly the way I feel about this, which is absolutely furious. I know that when I stand up I am absolutely furious about quite a lot of things, but this plumbs the depths of my fury.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you, everybody. I tried to be a core participant in the spy cops inquiry—I think it was the first one—but the judge ruled that it did not apply to me because I had been spied on by the regular police, not the spy cops, so I could not be part of it. I was very disappointed about that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I have to concede that, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a beguilingly attractive case for the amendment, but in essence this would be a legislative overreach. This activity is not being undertaken with impunity. We have checks and balances, although I accept they can be improved. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that children are used because of county lines, where children are used to move weapons and drugs.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will give way a little later as I want to develop my point, if the noble Baroness will be so kind as to allow me.
I think there are two sides to every story. When I was first a candidate and then Member of Parliament for Peterborough, I remember the sight every week of animal rights activists at Huntingdon Life Sciences. I do not support the activities of rogue police officers, as enunciated in what the noble Baroness said about spy cops, but we must not conflate separate phenomena: a full public inquiry—albeit in camera, which I do not agree with, as there should be openness and transparency—and specific criminal cases. One can also make the case that those police officers and others who were doxed by animal rights activists have suffered a huge degree of harassment and violent intimidation since the allegations arose, without having the opportunity to clear their names in a court of law. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I would like the noble Lord to give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful. The noble Lord referred earlier to children and county lines. The problem with this case is that relationships were formed under lies by police officers and children were born of those relationships, whose fathers then disappeared. It is nothing to do with the criminalised activity of children. Will he please reconsider his comments with that relevance?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. I was referring to the issue of county lines and why children may be used. I deprecate the unacceptable activity to which she refers; none of us would support the fathering of children in a pretended relationship, so she makes a very fair point.
I was talking about Huntingdon Life Sciences and animal rights activists. That violence escalated to a significant level over a number of years, which culminated in the violent attack on and near-death experience of the then chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences. It was a very unpleasant period. Therefore, there was a reasonable case to be made that the Metropolitan Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and others needed to embed officers and intelligence assets within the animal rights movement to alleviate the risk of further serious criminal activity. That was an animal rights issue, but it could easily not have been.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, concedes very fairly that she does not want to circumscribe cases where you have to do long-term surveillance of, say, a terrorist plot which might be carried out were it not for police activity and long-term embedding of people. That is separate to cases where there has not been an operational rationale for preventing criminal activity, so I accept that there is a difference.
That is why this amendment is rather heavy-handed. No doubt the Minister will refer to the commissioner, who will look at whether these activities are timely and appropriate, but words matter. Incidentally, when the noble Baroness mentioned the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, I think she made an unusual inference that it was to facilitate criminal activity. I may have been mistaken in hearing that and she may want to intervene.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is completely right; that is the purpose of that Act. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act is all about authorising CHISs to commit offences, because we understand that that is sometimes necessary to keep your cover.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
That is true as far as that goes. However, in the wider context, the principal objective of that legislation is not to enable people to commit crimes but to prevent people being subject to endless civil and criminal litigation that may arise from their duties as representatives of public bodies, be they the security services, the police et cetera. So I think that the noble Baroness is being slightly unfair to the Ministers at the time who put through that legislation. What she outlined was clearly a corollary of passing that legislation, but it was not the principal reason, as I am sure she will concede.
The reason I wanted to speak is to interrogate the details of this amendment. Looking at paragraph (2B)(b) of the proposed new clause, I wonder what is meant by
“otherwise seeking to discredit, the person, people or group subject to the authorised surveillance operation”.
That seems a very wide-ranging paragraph and a recipe for much litigation in the future. Should it eventually be found on the face of the enacted Crime and Policing Bill, the way that it will be interpreted will give rise to a situation where the police, the security services and others are much more reluctant to enter into long-term surveillance of the kind I discussed earlier in seeking to thwart a terrorist plot, because of that quite wide-ranging and open paragraph.
Generally speaking, the noble Baroness has made a very fine point and I agree with much of what she said, but I genuinely do not understand the point of that paragraph. If it is a way of describing an agent provocateur, I understand that—and, because she is a prominent lawyer, she will no doubt tell me where that is found in other pieces of legislation. However, currently, that paragraph could be misinterpreted, and it will circumscribe the capacity of the security services and the police to do their job and protect individuals. For those reasons, while I am not necessarily against the amendment, I would like further clarification if possible.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have long had a responsibility for the investigation of matters involving CHISs and I fully accept that many people who agree to become CHISs do so in the public interest, because, without their activities, the intelligence that they are able to collect would be unavailable. I also accept that undercover activity of this kind has long been a feature of criminal investigation.
Nevertheless, while the CHIS Act, which was passed in 2021, provided a very necessary statutory framework for the operation of CHISs, because that was previously absent, it does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse, particularly where such acts risk falling beyond the scope of the authorisation of the CCA, particularly where they are well concealed by those committing such crimes and not reporting back properly.
Regrettably, like many others, I have seen repeated abuses of authorisations of CHISs. I have also seen CHISs acting way beyond the scope of their authorisations, sometimes with the knowledge of those who manage them, to the extent that they value the CHIS more than dealing with unauthorised and perhaps criminal conduct by the CHIS.
When the CHIS is not an undercover officer—and, of course, not all CHISs are undercover state employees—there is less control and potentially a higher risk. Unlike in the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we in Northern Ireland have been able to expose unlawful activities of CHISs to bring them to account. So it can be done.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I add briefly to this debate. When the matter came before your Lordships’ House with the passage of the CHIS Bill towards the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021, whether to move from the use of CHISs and their conduct being looked at ex post facto to it being looked at in advance was hotly debated. It is a difficult subject to debate in an open Chamber. We all accept that CHISs are necessary, but it is impossible to go into the details of those cases here. Further, it is important to concentrate not on what happened prior to 2020, although such cases are illustrative of the abuses that can occur; we are concerned with what has happened since 2021 and how well the Act is working.
As things stand at present, I cannot really add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has said. My experience of this area of CHISs is that we have learned an enormous amount from Northern Ireland. We ignore at our peril what the judiciary and those who have experience of Northern Ireland tell us. That peril is that we need to be absolutely clear that the system we have of authorising when CHISs engage in criminal activity is subject to rigorous scrutiny. What disturbs me, and why I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that the key to the new system was prompt, effective and detailed scrutiny, reported to the best extent possible, of the way in which the system is operating.
On what the noble Baroness has said, I have looked at these reports myself. They are necessarily vague—they have to be, because you cannot put the information into the public domain—but they are delayed. I hope that the Minister will look very seriously at this and maybe meet some of us so that we can see the reality. Is this system working? If it is not working, we must revert either to the old system or to what is proposed in this amendment. It is key to public confidence in the police that we do not have a repeat of what happened in the matters that are the subject of the inquiry that has been spoken about—though this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that—that the CHISs operate properly, and that anything that goes wrong is properly dealt with. We cannot have another scandal on the scale of that which has been investigated for the past 10 or 12 years—I have lost count of time.
This is, therefore, a matter where the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness really should be investigated. I hope that the Minister will look very seriously at it. I had long discussions during the passage of the Bill in 2020 to try to ensure that we had a good system. At present, on what is available, there is no real democratic accountability and no independent scrutiny of it. We must have that, if public confidence in the police is not to suffer the kind of problems that it suffered, into which the inquiry is going on, in relation to pre-2020 events.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, have participated in this debate. Like myself, they attended the recent meeting chaired by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. It was very nice to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the admiration for the courage of the witnesses who came to speak to us at that meeting.
In any form of covert human intelligence, there has to be deception. It is the only way that the officer of the state, whoever he or she may be, can penetrate through to get the confidence of the criminals who they are there to investigate. But there should be, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti says in her amendment, some restraint in what they get up to.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, got up, he started by saying that he opposed this amendment, but it was pleasing that, by the end of his speech, he was quite neutral. That was very reassuring.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti referred to the 2011 case of R v Barkshire, which concerned an undercover police officer infiltrating a group of climate change activists. The police officer, who I will not name, indulged in a sexual relationship, for about seven years, with one of the ladies involved. It also involved the birth of a child. This police officer, according to my brief, had as many as 10 other sexual relationships during the course of his activity as an undercover officer. When it came to the court, it was said that he went “much further” than the authorisation given to him, and that he played
“a significant role in assisting, advising and supporting … the very activity for which these appellants were prosecuted”.
That is why my noble friend—I hope she notes that I am giving her full support in this amendment—is absolutely right to suggest that there should be restraint. I accept entirely the restraint which is contained in Amendment 470.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank JUSTICE and the group Police Spies Out of Lives, particularly the women who were on the receiving end of the treatment by the CHISs. I declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which has given grants to Police Spies Out of Lives for well over a decade, in the run-up to the beginning of the inquiry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about how long it has taken to get the abuses taken seriously, and it really has. The inquiry itself took many years to be established, and there was damage to those women’s lives in the aftermath every time they went to people in the establishment to ask them to please take their concerns seriously. There was stunning silence.
The trust had a chance to meet and hear from these extraordinary women, who were seeking justice for many decades. Without their determination there would be no inquiry, no TV documentaries and no newspaper articles. I salute them all for their refusal to be cowed and their strength of character, even in the face of repeated setbacks from the establishment, including the extremely slow inquiry—which is not expected to conclude before 2030, and quite possibly later—at an enormous cost to the public purse and, above all, to these victims of the police spies.
The glacial speed of the public inquiry into undercover policing is on a par with the long delays of other historic scandals including infected blood, Post Office Horizon and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. As young girls and women who were taken advantage of in the 1970s head towards getting their pensions, it is vital to ensure that there are no further delays.
As we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Amendment 470 would replace provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as amended by the CHIS Act 2021, which grants complete advanced criminal and civil immunity for authorised operatives and agents with public interest offences, as long as they did not act as agents provocateurs.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, helpfully made clear her experience in Northern Ireland and the shortcomings of the CHIS legislation. The contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, also confirmed that we must continue to learn lessons from the new system. Amendment 470 would correct the law to ensure that, in future, those using CHISs must have a high standard of regulation and accountability. We, as a country, need more oversight of CHISs’ criminal activity and the mechanism to ensure that officers and their superiors meet these high standards and make decisions in light of the law.
From these Benches, we welcome Amendment 470 and the safeguard that it offers to the victims. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but the officers too, because it would give them a framework and responsibility to think about any actions, whether they need permission for them and, if so, whether they should really be thinking about doing it at all, which is long overdue.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it might not surprise the Committee to hear that I do not support this amendment and I am sure I will find myself making the same arguments as the Minister when he responds.
In 2021, Parliament passed the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, which was introduced to this House by my noble and learned friend, Lord Stewart of Dirleton. Its effect was to create a legislative framework through which covert intelligence officers can be authorised to participate in conduct which would normally be criminal. The criminal conduct authorisation might be granted under Section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as inserted by the 2021 Act, only if it is proportionate and necessary, in the interests of national security, prevention of crime and disorder, or in the interests of our economic well-being. Subsection (6) of that section also requires the person authorising the criminal conduct to ensure—and this is important—that all alternative avenues that do not make use of criminality have been exhausted. Subsection (7) states that the decision to grant an authorisation is required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, there is an explicit goal for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Therefore, there already exists a number of safeguards to prevent covert intelligence officers overstepping the bounds of their authorisation and to ensure that the authorisation itself is tightly drawn and strictly necessary. When a criminal conduct authorisation is granted, the officer to whom it relates is permitted to engage in the specified criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for that conduct. It is perfectly well understood and accepted that covert agents do, on occasion, have to engage in such criminal conduct in the course of their operations. It is absolutely right that the law protects them when this is the case.
It is also worth noting that the 2021 Act did not create new powers for the police and intelligence services; it simply placed on a statutory footing the mechanism by which they can be authorised to engage in criminal behaviour. This is surely preferable to having the whole system working on the side and in the dark.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, proposes in her Amendment 470 to remove the criminal and civil immunity provided to officers when they commit a criminal offence in pursuance of an authorisation to do so. She proposes replacing it with a defence to criminal or civil charges. However, she has also included an exception to that possible defence—when an officer encourages, assists or attempts to discredit the person who is under surveillance. I find this a startling exception. If a covert officer is given a criminal conduct authorisation and that authorisation, taking into account all the available safeguards, includes permission to commit an inchoate offence, I cannot see why that officer should not be able to do so. Certainly, the officer should not be held criminally or civilly liable.
I am sure the Minister will have further points to add, but we on these Benches cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Is the noble Lord saying that he supports officers or their assets acting as agents provocateurs, inciting crime rather than investigating it?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not saying that at all. We all recognise that things have gone wrong, but what I say generally is that this type of policing—indeed, quite a number of aspects of policing—is about testing the law. Certainly, this is the case with the involvement of CHISs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord mentioned all the safeguards, but why does he think the safeguards failed not once, but multiple times, and over quite a number of years?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot answer for all the cases that have gone wrong; indeed, I cannot answer for any cases that have gone wrong—it is not my place to do that. I can say, however, that it very much depends on good leadership and good supervision, and all of that comes down to good training. It has always been my view that training is at the core of all of this.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that statutory blanket immunity from civil or criminal action acts as a barrier for people who are affected by such unlawful activities? It is a significant concern because of the impact that barrier has on those who might need to bring such action, and who might have difficulty getting funding or access to the necessary support. Then, there is an ongoing huge impact on trust in the police.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Trust in the police in this area is essential. I am not sure I quite get the gist of what the noble Baroness is asking, but I am very happy to discuss it outside the Chamber later, if that would help.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
It was about statutory blanket immunity—the extent of the immunity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Again, I would have to have a look at that before I give an answer. I am very happy to discuss it with the noble Baroness.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Can the noble Lord comment on the case of R v Barkshire, and does he endorse the behaviour of the counter-intelligence officer in that case?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not entirely sure that I know all the facts of that case, so I am probably not qualified to answer that question. I spent my job putting people behind bars, not defending them. I am not a lawyer; I would not like to take that any further, frankly.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her amendment. The discussion today has taken me back to my time in Northern Ireland, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence. As Counter-Terrorism Minister in 2009, I had to see the product of that intelligence, so I understand the value of that. I also understand that the amendment seeks to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by removing the legal protections for covert human intelligence sources who have been tasked by the police and a limited number of other public authority agencies, such as the intelligence services, with engaging in specific, tightly defined, pre-approved criminal conduct. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to remove protections for CHISs engaged in such authorised criminal conduct where it engages the offences of encouraging or assisting an offender under the Serious Crime Act, or seeks to discredit those who are subject to a particular investigation. I understand the motive behind what my noble friend has brought forward.
I begin by addressing the undercover police inquiry, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I took office in July 2024, and the undercover policing inquiry had operated for nine years at that stage. It is clear that the historical allegations under consideration by the inquiry are absolutely appalling. Such behaviour should rightly be condemned. The inquiry is ongoing, and we await the findings and any recommendations, but let me assure all those who have spoken that I am now responsible in the Home Office for managing inquiries, and I wish to see recommendations as soon as possible, for the very reasons noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned today.
The current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed, and since 2013 enhanced safeguards have been put in place, but the Government want to see the lessons of that inquiry and consider them as soon as possible.
Noble Lords may recall the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, which has been referred to today, and the revised CHIS code of practice of 2022, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which were subject to debate and approval both here and in the House of Commons. This scrutiny includes consideration of similar amendments proposed by my noble friend at the time.
I say to noble Lords generally, including my noble friend Lord Hacking, that CHIS play a crucial part in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from many serious crimes, including terrorism, drugs and firearms offences, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who do it do so at such personal risk to themselves. I noted and welcome the support from the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson—I will take the support where I can get it. It needs to be properly authorised and specifically defined criminality by the state, and they do so knowing that they will not be penalised for carrying out that activity, particularly by those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity, who may otherwise pursue legal action against them.
It is important that we place on record that CHIS authorisations and criminal conduct authorisations under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be validly given only where the proposed conduct is necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act. Valid authorisations make activity carried out in relation to them “lawful for all purposes”, providing protection from criminal and civil liability. However—I know my noble friend knows this—should a court find that the authorisation does not satisfy these necessary requirements, or should the conduct go beyond what is permitted by the authorisation, it will not be rendered lawful.
Given the significance of these powers, it is important to note that there are independent and effective avenues of oversight and redress, and that these exist—I know that colleagues who have spoken know this, but it is worth putting on the record again—via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anyone who believes they have been subject to improper activity by a public authority using covert investigatory powers.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the recording of CCAs in a number of cases most recently, which appears to indicate a deterioration in that area.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always interested in what Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, says. From my perspective he provides robust oversight, which includes comments that he has made, and he and his inspectors pay particular attention to that criminal conduct authorisation. He produces annual reports—I know that they are time-lagged, for reasons that are self-evident with any annual report. In his annual report in 2024, he identified
“good levels of compliance for the authorisation and management”
of police undercover operatives and noted that the quality and content of police undercover operative criminal conduct authorisations was found to be of a “good standard”. I will always look and listen to what he says because we have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are dealt with for the product of that CHIS to help protect the public at large.
I assure my noble friend and in this context the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that the CHIS cannot be authorised to entrap people—which is one of the objectives of her amendment. Any such entrapment would be in conflict with Article 6 of the ECHR—as my noble friend knows, we are committed to maintaining our obligations under the ECHR—which protects the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, I point my noble friend to the publicly available Undercover Policing: Authorised Professional Practice, which states in clear terms that an undercover operative
“must not act as an agent provocateur”.
I hope that satisfies my noble friend on that point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will ask a similar question to the one I asked the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If these safeguards are so wonderful and if it is all in good order, why was this allowed to happen? The evidence of the spy cops from the early days of that inquiry was that the people overseeing the CHIS knew what was happening regarding their relationships with the women. They knew and they let it happen. That does not sound like good order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, the noble Baroness is raising historical issues; there have been improvements in performance management and control over time. As I said, those historical issues are appalling but are currently under investigation within the remit of the John Mitting inquiry into undercover policing. I want to see the recommendations of that inquiry as soon as possible so that we can see where there are further issues. I see that the noble Baroness wants to jump in again, which is fine. Leaping up is part of the parliamentary tennis that we play, and it is important that she has the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It also keeps us fit. All through the inquiry, the police have blocked information from being given out. They have constantly tried to stop the truth becoming open. I can understand the Minister saying that he is waiting for the inquiry to report, but it could take another decade. In the meantime, we still have those concerns about the police. The women’s concerns were brushed away. There might have been various pathways for them to complain, but they were brushed away. Why does the Minister think it is any better today?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness tempts me to go into areas of the inquiry, which I will not do. The inquiry is looking at historical abuses, which we have recognised and which are appalling. In the meantime, there have been legislation and improvements by policing in the management of covert operations. I am giving the noble Baroness that assurance now that we believe there are improvements in that management but things that need to be looked at in relation to the previous operation.
The legislation that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend has also put in place a range of measures as a whole. I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that I have made clear that CHISs cannot be authorised to entrap. This amendment would impose broad and unintended constraints on intelligence gathering by CHISs where criminal conduct is a factor—for example, by preventing CHISs going along with offences that they do not instigate. I have seen the product of that type of activity by CHISs. It is extremely valuable for crime prevention and for bringing people who are committing criminal or terrorist acts to the courts.
My noble friend’s amendment would also rule out the possibility of discrediting the subject of an investigation—for example, a terrorist organisation—in cases where it is equally important to do so. My noble friend has fulfilled her duty. She is challenging the Government on these matters. Self-evidently, we are in a better place than we were many years ago. I await with interest the recommendations of the John Mitting inquiry on undercover policing and whether there are further issues for us to examine.
I want to touch on two other points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, sort of asked for a meeting. I am always open to meeting with Peers. In my tenure in this job, I have tried to meet with anybody who has asked. But in this case, given that there is an inquiry ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with him to discuss those matters now.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I was talking not about the inquiry but about the level of supervision and what is happening in the reports under this Act. I entirely agree with the Minister that what happened in the inquiry has nothing to do with this regime. The inquiry is relevant only because it shows the horrendous consequences of not supervising the use of CHISs. All I was concerned to understand better was why there are problems with the reports being so slow and what problems are being encountered. You cannot put this into the public domain, but it would reassure, from the point of view of democratic accountability, if we saw what the problems were and whether there were other means—such as strengthening the code of conduct—to put it right. The peril here is the discrediting of the police five years down the line. That is what I am concerned to avoid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Those are operational matters for the police, in my view, but we can make some judgments on that. I will reflect on what he has said and what he has requested, but my initial gut reaction—and I would like to trust my gut, on several occasions—is that it would not be appropriate to do that. I will reflect on what he said. I am trying to complete my remarks, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to speak, and I will always give way to him.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his generosity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I found his remarks, like those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others, very helpful. I think I understand that he specifically ruled out our considering inquiries, but the suggestion that I—as someone who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, described, was hostile and is now more agnostic—would make to the Minister is that if he could look at secondary legislation, such as regulations, in terms of the timeliness of reports for the commissioner to bring forward, that would strengthen the scrutiny and oversight of the process. I fully agree with the process, but what seems to have come out as a consensus in the debate today is that people think the scrutiny process is clunky and not timely, so everyone loses in terms of reputation. If the Minister can perhaps give an undertaking that he will at least look at the issue prior to Report, that would be helpful.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Given what has been said, I will reflect on the comments that have been made. It is important that Sir Brian Leveson has his independence and oversight. I shall look at my gut feelings on this, but I will consider it, take advice and see where we are outside the debate today. In relation to my noble friend’s amendment, I still hope that, given what has been said today—a valuable discussion has been had—she will withdraw it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I think was an important and thoughtful debate. There is quite a lot of common ground, actually. There is common ground that we must have covert human intelligence sources. They must play a role in investigating the most serious crimes, in particular. There is further common ground that part of keeping someone’s cover in, for example, a criminal gang or a terrorist cell, must inevitably sometimes include participating in criminal activity; otherwise, those around them will spot that they do not belong. Again, that is common ground. There is also common ground that it was right to put activities that were previously completely in the shadows on a statutory footing, as happened in 2021.
The difference between some Members of the Committee and others is about whether, when someone is authorised to commit criminal offences in such a role, that authorisation should bring advance total immunity for all purposes, civil and criminal, or whether instead the authorisation should equip them with a public interest defence. That is the difference between us. It is a question of principle but also of practice as to where the balance should be struck, and which system—the one currently on the statute book or something like the one I propose—would give a better balance of safeguards for the brave and genuine public servants who do this work without abusing the trust, but also for the rights of citizens to be protected from abuse. That is the difference between us. Which mechanism provides the most proportionate approach? I do not think there is a gulf, but this is something to keep under review and keep discussing.
As I said earlier, in the report from which the Minister read selectively, Sir Brian Leveson talks about reporting being good, but even he concedes, in the same report, a lack of “specificity” on occasion, only a “general descriptor”, a “number of errors” and so on. So there are some issues that warrant serious and ongoing scrutiny.
My noble friend the Minister may regret telling the Committee that he now has special responsibility for inquiries in the Home Office—his kindness may be a liability—but I suspect that we will want to keep pressing him, not least on the progress of the inquiry on the past but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, on the way the system is operating today. The report suggests that the system today is not operating in the way that we would ideally like. With that, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct (England and Wales)(1) The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 51(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “war crime”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(3) Omit section 51(2).(4) In section 52(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “conduct”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(5) Omit section 52(4).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives effect to the JCHR’s recommendation to amend the ICC Act 2001 to provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct. This would allow for the authorities in England and Wales to prosecute persons suspected of these crimes without any requirement for a connection to the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in moving all-party Amendments 472 and 473, I thank the co-sponsors and other supporters, who include the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Hodgson of Abinger, my noble friends Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Clement-Jones.
These amendments have been recommended to the House in two separate reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair. One of those arose from the legislative scrutiny of this Bill; the other was its report on how to deal with the atrocity crimes of Daesh against the Yazidis and other minorities. The recommendations and amendments of the JCHR were unanimous and enjoyed all-party support. They also enjoyed the strong support of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons and its chair Sarah Champion MP, and organisations such as Redress.
The Minister and others will have seen a letter from the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, signed by more than 30 of some of the most illustrious and distinguished practitioners in the field. These amendments are a response to what the JCHR saw as a justice gap. They are also compatible with practice in other jurisdictions and are limited in scope. They make a very small but indicative and incremental change by removing the requirement of UK citizenship and UK residence from Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I will try to summarise the key arguments in favour of the amendments for the Committee, then tackle some of the misconceptions.
Under international law, the UK is already legally obliged to prosecute suspects of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes who are present on its territory regardless of nationality or residence. A failure to do so puts the UK at risk of becoming a safe haven for alleged perpetrators of international crimes. The rule of law is weakened when alleged perpetrators of genocide or crimes against humanity and war crimes can be here in the UK without facing justice, so this is about closing that justice gap.
These amendments give substance to the long-standing case for reform repeatedly raised since 2009 and are not directed at any particular country, individual or context. There is no concealed political agenda, and safeguards are included to ensure the continuation of prosecutorial oversight by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General of decisions about whether to prosecute. They also make a reality of the often-repeated desire for the United Kingdom to reinforce and renew its claim to leadership in promoting the rule of law. We will be doing so by ending impunity for the gravest international crimes and by empowering British courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the United Kingdom.
It is a mirage to cite the role of the International Criminal Court, as it cannot single-handedly provide accountability for international crimes, even before considering the use of vetoes by those who would not wish such crimes to be referred to that court. Capable national courts must share the burden, as the German courts have done, in successfully prosecuting the crime of genocide. Other comparable democracies already prosecute suspects present on their territory, and that option should be open to us too.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord. This legislation presents a unique opportunity to close long-outstanding accountability gaps in the UK’s universal jurisdiction laws and ensure that the perpetrators of the world’s most serious crimes can be brought to justice on British soil, which is not always possible under current law.
Many organisations support these amendments, which, to be clear, amend the International Criminal Court Act. That Act confined universal jurisdiction relating to crimes under the Rome statute to those who had residency in or nationality of this country, so it is very limited. The United States law followed ours and limited certain crimes that would be covered by universal jurisdiction to nationality and residence. It has now amended its law to make sure that anybody coming through the United States who is suspected of serious, grievous crimes that would fall under this universal jurisdiction framework could be arrested. That is also the case in large parts of Europe.
Noble Lords will be asking what this business of universal jurisdiction is. UK courts can prosecute certain international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction because it is a legal framework that allows states to pursue justice for the most serious offences committed abroad, even when the case has no direct connection to their citizens or territory. Noble Lords can imagine what those crimes are. They include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Universal jurisdiction reflects the global consensus that such crimes are so grave that they demand accountability wherever they occur.
At present, as I have said, the UK’s ability to prosecute grave international crimes under universal jurisdiction is limited. It is quite contradictory, but under the International Criminal Court Act, prosecutions can be brought for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity only where the suspect is a UK national or resident. As a result, individuals accused of serious international crimes can enter this country without facing justice—and, let me tell you, they do.
I hear this from reliable witnesses who have fled persecution. They know those who have come here, seeking independent schools for their children or university places—usually for their sons, it has to be said—and to shop at Harrods or vacation in London with all its amenities. They often come in civilian attire, not wearing the Iranian revolutionary guard or Russian general uniforms that they wear back at home. They come for all manner of purposes. They come and go, and we cannot act. When I was the master of an Oxford college, there was a scandal because the son of a revolutionary guard torturer found a place at an Oxford college, his father having accompanied him. This is happening in a subterranean way, and action could be taken.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 473. We have already heard how these amendments could help victims and survivors to seek justice for some of the worst atrocities. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a moment ago from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also emphasised the reason why we need to care about justice and accountability for such atrocities. Many may wonder why we, in these islands, are best suited to investigate such crimes. How is it that alleged perpetrators enter the UK? Surely this should be regarded as a matter of national security.
However, my main purpose in speaking today is to bring the debate closer to home. In August 2024, Wales and the UK lost a remarkable man, described by his friends and families as a gentle giant—Ryan Evans. He was from Wrexham, not far from where I live. Ryan was then working as a safety adviser for Reuters in Ukraine. As it happens, Elinor and I took in a family of refugees from eastern Ukraine.
Ryan was in the east of Ukraine, with a news crew from Reuters news agency, when the hotel in which they were staying was hit by a missile. Ryan was killed and nine other people were injured in the attack. So, why was Ryan killed? He worked for Reuters, covering the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine. Russia does not want the world to know the scope and nature of those atrocities. Because of that, journalists and media outlets are specifically targeted. A recent report by Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders commented that, the case of Ryan Evans,
“stands not only as a testament to the dangers media professionals face but also as a call for accountability and reinforced protections for all members of journalistic teams”.
The killing of Ryan Evans is part of a wider pattern of similar atrocities and war crimes and crimes against humanity. As things stand, and without these important amendments, the family of Ryan have very limited avenues for justice and accountability within the UK. That is because the alleged perpetrators are not British citizens or, indeed, British residents. As such, when we talk about universal jurisdiction, we are talking not only about faraway cases in distant countries. British citizens may well be among victims or survivors, and we cannot continue denying them and their families an avenue for justice here in the UK.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the words of the family of Ryan Evans—namely, David and Geraldine Evans—who came to Parliament last year and made this plea in support of strengthening the laws. These are words that deserve to be brought to the attention of the House:
“It’s been sixteen months since we had the terrible news of our son Ryan’s death. For those who have lost a loved one suddenly, they will know that you’re in shock for months—even longer; and, as time unfolds, the questions that initially came into your mind come back stronger. In Ryan’s Case questions like - “Was the single missile strike on his hotel deliberately planned? Was he killed instantly, or did he suffer? What is our Government doing to bring the people responsible for killing him to justice?”
They go on to say,
“Some questions we have the answers to, yes, Russia did target our son’s hotel in Kramatorsk deliberately. He died helping to seek the truth, by working with independent journalists, an unarmed non combatant. Russia’s propaganda machine tried to justify the attack and his death with ridiculous statements, as they do in their horrifying attacks on civilians, including non Ukrainian citizens. We seek justice for our son’s murder”.
Their plea concludes with the words:
“We, his family, have a life sentence of grief, which will never go away. The impact on us, his parents, his siblings, his children and wider family and friends is incalculable and life-changing. We look to our government to change the law to work to bring the people responsible for such war crimes and deaths, to justice. As long as one of our family members is alive, we will seek justice and work with our government for help. Ryan would want that; he was a man of integrity, honour and courage, as the following quote reminds us, In the words of Lois McMaster Bujold: ‘The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them’”.
We need to do better for the families of victims and survivors, including the family of Ryan Evans. We need to make sure that the law in the UK enables them to seek truth, justice and accountability.
In December 2024, Reuters reported that Ukraine’s security service had named a Russian general it suspects of ordering a missile strike on the hotel and, in Reuters’ words,
“with the motive of deliberately killing employees of”
Reuters. The security service of Ukraine has named a deputy chief of Russia’s general staff as the person who approved the strike that killed Ryan Evans and wounded two of the agency’s journalists. Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders have identified two senior leaders in the army units that took the decision to strike the hotel. I understand that these names are known to the British Government.
At this stage, in view of the fact that we are considering the death of a British citizen, I would expect the authorities in the UK, at a minimum, to start investigations into the alleged perpetrators. The options to bring them to account in the UK are clearly limited, but I believe that Amendments 472 and 473 could help ensure that the alleged perpetrators are investigated for war crimes. I ask for the support of noble colleagues in memory of Ryan, for his family and indeed for justice.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I want to strongly support these amendments, and I shall be relatively brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was kind enough to inform the Committee that in her presence I described the present situation as illogical. In fact, I think I spoke a good deal more strongly than that, and she has been kind enough not to repeat the totality of my remarks.
This is a reform which has been proposed and urged upon successive Governments for years. I found the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, utterly persuasive and completely unanswerable. I take issue with him on only one point, which is when he expressed a little bit of surprise that the CPS would be supporting him. When I was the head of the CPS, I strongly supported this reform. Indeed, shortly after I stepped down from that position, I wrote a column in the Times asking this question: what is it about prosecuting war criminals in this context that the Government do not like? I never received a reply to that question which I understood, and the question is still live.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also offer my support but express some concerns that I believe could be addressed. I do not think I need to say very much as to the reasons I support the amendments, because the speakers before me have all done such a stellar job.
The one point that I would perhaps clarify is that a number of these offences under international law impose on the UK an obligation to prosecute or extradite. The problem that we have is that, in many cases, we cannot extradite. We cannot extradite in some cases because there is no jurisdiction that can, in practice, begin a criminal prosecution. But sometimes we cannot extradite because the jurisdictions to which we would extradite are jurisdictions where the suspect would face the death penalty or torture. In those cases, the individuals would, in effect, find a safe haven here because of our generous human rights protection, to which I think we should all remain committed. So we may end up with individuals who cannot be deported or extradited and whom we cannot prosecute unless we have some reform of universal jurisdiction. That is the need for this change, which would also bring us into line with international obligations.
My concerns are the following. First, we need to remember that universal jurisdiction is the last resort. In a lot of these cases, it is true that the country where the offence was committed, or of which the alleged offender is a national, will not be able to prosecute. However, ideally, the prosecutions should take place in a jurisdiction that has a closer connection with either the offence or the offender. Where that is not possible, we need to look at other options. Another option is prosecution before an international court and tribunal. As we know, under the ICC statute, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is always complementary to national jurisdictions. Only in the third instance, and as a last resort, should we look at prosecution under universal jurisdiction. It is only when everything else fails, which unfortunately might happen quite often, that prosecution under universal jurisdiction should be contemplated.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I ask the noble Lord to continue the discussions with those of us proposing this amendment today, but our amendment is not as ambitious as he suggests. I wish it were, but actually it is much more limited. On some of the points he raised about the kinds of people who could be brought for prosecution to the United Kingdom under universal jurisdiction more widely, yes, that could happen in a country like Germany, but it would not happen under this amendment. This is about people coming here and being able to do so with impunity rather than immunity, simply because we do not have any powers to arrest them or take them to court.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that it is about only those who are within the jurisdiction, but a lot of officials come within the jurisdiction at different points in time and for different reasons. There was another case a few years ago in which I was also instructed, concerning the visit of the Egyptian head of intelligence to the United Kingdom. On that occasion, there was an attempt to arrest him, which failed, and his immunity was upheld. That is the sort of scenario where we need clarity.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am very glad that my noble friend has raised that point, because it is very relevant. If, for instance, the Foreign Office were to say to the Attorney-General, “We are bringing someone here to have discussions about how to secure peace in Sudan”, but they might have been involved with the RSF or the Sudanese Army in some of the atrocities there, there would be no requirement to prosecute them, because in those circumstances the Attorney-General simply would not allow the prosecution to proceed.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
It is not quite like that, because the Foreign Office would have to issue special permission for the person who came within the jurisdiction, and now that we have clarified the law, that would give that individual immunity. As for the Attorney-General’s decision not to consent, there is a risk that that could be subject to judicial review, and there have already been attempts in that space. But I agree that that is a very important procedural requirement, and it is already in the Act.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 473. On the arguments and all the difficulties and intricacies, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, cannot be doubted, given his involvement and the things he has done. In the end, however, I am a simple person. I know that there are complications and it is difficult, but if these amendments are accepted, it would allow the possibility of exploring all those intricacies and complications.
The really annoying thing for most of us is when people whom we know have committed terrible atrocities—when the evidence is incontrovertible—can leave the places they have devastated and come here to do their shopping and have holidays. This country, and particularly this present Government, say that everything is going to be best under the rule of law. Lord Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law, said some wonderful things—that the rule of law is the nearest thing we have to a universal origin. In other words, there are no areas the rule of law does not cover. I say that because there is a possibility of enshrining what Lord Bingham was talking about.
Globalisation has given we citizens of the world the possibility of living in a global village. It is no longer about living on this little island—we all belong to this huge global village, and whoever touches any citizen in our global village touches us. It is not just the people who live in Ukraine or somewhere else: they touch them, and they are touching us.
We are therefore partly involved in all this. The United Kingdom must not become a haven, as the noble Lord said, for those who committed such atrocities and are escaping justice and the places where they were done. We must not be a place that gives the impression that the door is open and they can come here. They do their shopping, and some even bring their children to send them to university or other places of learning; I have known this. They think that they are getting away with it. To me, that is what must not happen.
Margaret and I came to this country in 1974, and it was another nearly six years before Idi Amin’s Government fell. We were terrified to have any contact with the Ugandan embassy, because the people he had sent before his Government fell had committed terrible atrocities. Margaret and I knew these characters and they got away with it. In his regime, nearly 900,000 people were murdered, including the chief justice, the chancellor of the university, the head of the civil service—I could go on and on. These dictators and people like that seem to have a very long arm that prevents anybody getting near them.
For me, these amendments are opening a door for further conversation. The proposers of the two amendments were wise in saying that this, if it is to happen, should be laid at the door of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, who has a lot of advisers and very able people, will look at it and make a decision on whether prosecution happens. They are not simply opening it out to every court, to everybody, to think they can have a go. It is so limited. If we do not do this, as a country that really upholds the rule of law, and if we do not have this universal jurisdiction as an armoury in place, we will simply have people coming here when they have committed terrible atrocities, and they will look as though they are untouchable.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, all the speakers have made a powerful case in support of these two amendments, not least of course the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who moved the lead amendment. I apologise to him for missing the first few minutes. I was caught out because I had not remembered that Amendment 471 had already been debated. I have had the advantage of reading that part of the JCHR report, both on the account of—
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise, but the noble Baroness has just said that she was not in her place at the start of the group. Really, she should not be speaking to the group if she was not in her place. That is the usual convention and courtesy of the House and is set out in the Companion as well.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 472 and 473 from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, add a series of small but vital issues that would ensure that the UK can play its part in holding to account perpetrators of the most serious international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Above all, these amendments would give victims and their families the opportunity to achieve the justice that they deserve. I thank the British Institute of Human Rights, Genocide Response and Redress for their very helpful briefing.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the signatories to his amendments have set out in detail the legal reasons why the current laws in relation to these international crimes need to have certain loopholes closed ,and other noble Lords have spoken to them as well.
As chair of human rights at Liberal International, I attend the annual Geneva summit on human rights. Last February, I met people who had fled from Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Russia and Tibet, and Uyghurs from China, who had been on the receiving end of the most appalling crimes, from genocide to crimes against humanity, including torture and war crimes. All of them look to countries such as the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of universal jurisdiction. Sadly, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we do not do that fully and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put it, we need to share the burden.
By not being prepared to empower our courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the UK, we let people down. Without the changes proposed in Amendments 472 and 473, the British courts lack jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators of international crimes—including leaders of the Iranian regime who may travel to the UK for medical treatment, despite there being credible allegations of their involvement in international crimes against humanity, and the alleged perpetrators of genocide in Darfur—because the alleged conduct falls under the Rome statute crimes but does not trigger universal jurisdiction under UK law.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I fully understand the noble intentions behind Amendments 472 and 473, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. The crimes he speaks of are among the most abhorrent and the work he has done is admirable. He is to be warmly congratulated. However, for reasons I will set out, the Opposition cannot support the amendments.
We must first recognise that the British justice system has, first and foremost, a responsibility to uphold the rule of law and punish criminality in Britain. Similarly, the British Government have, first and foremost, a responsibility to protect the security of Britain, and this must be our principal concern. The British Government are not a global Government; we cannot police the world, and we must be very open and honest about that.
It is also a more than unfortunate fact that there are a number of Daesh fighters and other terrorists who have been returned to Britain but have not successfully been prosecuted for the crimes the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to. Daesh committed widespread war crimes, genocide against Yazidis and numerous crimes against humanity. To pick up on the noble Lord’s point, if we have people in Britain who committed these heinous crimes but have not yet been prosecuted, I am not sure we should be adding even more by bringing prosecutions against people with no connection to the United Kingdom. Let us prosecute those who have been involved in genocide and war crimes who are in the UK first, before we start trying to prosecute others.
It is also very important that we do not simply welcome people with terrorist connections back into our country. We on these Benches are firmly supportive of the Home Secretary robustly using her powers to exclude people from the United Kingdom who pose a threat to the British people and, where necessary, to strip particularly dangerous people of their British citizenship.
Finally, there is also a question of where prosecutions should best take place. There is a compelling argument for prosecutions and investigations to take place closer to where the crimes were committed, which should allow for a better evidence-gathering process. Ultimately, we must be careful not to subordinate the safety and security of the British public for the purposes of advancing international law. For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Can my noble friend comment on the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven? Did he find nothing in what they had to say the least bit attractive?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, my old home city, for the way in which he has approached these amendments. I thank him for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which he chairs, and through him I pass on my thanks to my old colleague Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, for the work she has done on this issue. As he knows, we had an opportunity to debate the committee’s report in Grand Committee. I was fortunate that my noble friend Lord Katz took the debate on that occasion and was able to set out the Government’s response, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will realise has not really changed in the intervening months since that debate. However, I am grateful to him, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their supportive comments, and I will come on to comments from other noble Lords in due course. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is not in her place at the moment, and missed the start of the debate so was therefore not able to speak in this debate—although she tried—but if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she can make any points she was going to raise in a letter to me and we will consider those prior to Report, which I hope is a fair compromise.
Before I go on to the main bulk of the arguments, I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his comments on the death of Mr Ryan Evans, of Wrexham, which is close to both him and me. It is obviously a deeply sad incident and his death in Ukraine in 2024 followed a Russian strike, as the noble Lord outlined. The UK Government continue to support efforts to ensure accountability for the crimes that are committed in Ukraine. This includes supporting the independent investigation of the International Criminal Court into the situation in Ukraine, as well as providing assistance to Ukrainian domestic investigations and prosecutions of international crimes. Although I cannot give him much succour today in relation to that particular issue, I hope he will pass on the Government’s condolences to Ryan’s parents. We are obviously happy to have further representations on that matter should he wish to make them in due course.
The points made by my noble friend Lord Katz in the previous debate—and those with which I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—relate to the fact that the UK applies its universal jurisdiction only to a very few specific international crimes. Our approach to universal jurisdiction is designed to ensure that those suspected of, or accused of, crimes are investigated, charged and tried fairly and impartially at every stage, with access to all available evidence. This is in accordance with local constitutional and legal frameworks. It remains the case—and I know this will disappoint those noble Lords who have spoken in support today—that we do not believe that it is necessary at this time to extend the scope of the UK’s policy on universal jurisdiction to include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is the long-standing view of successive Governments in general that where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime—and this goes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, made—we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted where they are perpetrated. That also goes to some of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because the advantages of securing evidence and the witnesses required for a fair investigation and a successful prosecution are part of a credible judicial process.
It should be noted that the UK already has jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity where they are alleged to have been committed by UK nationals or residents. In some cases where the UK does not have jurisdiction, such as in Ukraine—I have just mentioned the situation in relation to Mr Ryan Evans, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—we are trying to ensure that we build domestic capabilities, and we support the work of the Office of the Prosecutor General to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully investigated by independent, effective and robust legal mechanisms.
To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the most serious international crimes not covered by the UK’s universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which, again, I would argue today, is better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities. The UK is a strong supporter of the ICC and its mission to end impunity. I know that we will do what we can to ensure that the crimes that have been mentioned today are dealt with by that international court, but I have to say that the debate that we had in the Moses Room, led by my noble friend Lord Katz, and the response I have given to the amendments today are the Government’s position. I accept and respect the points that have been put to the Committee today, but given the considerations that I have mentioned, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to withdraw his amendment. In saying that, I suspect we will return to these matters on Report. The Government will always reflect on what has been said in Committee, but I hope in due course the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I apologise for interrupting, but I just wanted to make sure that I am not misunderstood. The ICC is there where it has jurisdiction, but the problem that we have is that, in some of these countries, there is no ICC jurisdiction yet. Syria is not a party to the ICC; Ukraine has become a party to the ICC but only as of 1 January 2025. Any offence in Ukraine predating that would be an issue in terms of ICC jurisdiction. That is where the gap in universal jurisdiction policy is quite relevant. I just wanted to clarify my position, which was not to say that we do not need it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that, and I thought I understood the noble Lord’s position clearly, but I am grateful for his clarification. It still adds to the general point that I have made today, and I go back to the original, overarching point that the UK applies universal jurisdiction to only a very few specific international crimes. Our approach—through long-standing support of successive Governments—is that, where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime, we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. That may not be a position that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, or his supporters today, but it is one which I hope I have clarified. I note also—which I did not mention earlier—the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this important debate. I was particularly grateful, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, with her immense experience and as a colleague on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we are beginning to miss her already, only one week after she rotated off the committee. This was a unanimous recommendation, not just in one but in two reports. We took evidence. This was not just about our inability to intervene in faraway places. We took evidence about British nationals who had been in north-east Syria and in northern Iraq and who had committed what even the Foreign and Commonwealth office has now decided was a genocide—it is willing now to use that word, which is very unusual on the part of the FCDO.
So we have the evidence. We know that 400 of the British fighters who went there came back, and not a single one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide. Too often, there has been rank impunity. We also know that they have connections with other people who are not British citizens and who regularly travel to the United Kingdom. What this limited amendment seeks to do is not bring all those people before the British courts; it is about taking people who come into the UK with those kinds of links and bringing them to justice if the Attorney-General believes that there is a case to answer.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for reinforcing the argument, and I thank my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wigley, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu. I wish we could have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but I suspect there will be an opportunity on Report, and I hope that omission will be put right. Nevertheless, I was grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said about being willing to hear what she has to say but on a one-to-one basis. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and of course the Minister himself.
Lord Cromwell
“Report: economic crime fighting fund(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the viability, and potential merits, of establishing an economic crime fighting fund based on the principle of reinvesting a proportion of receipts resulting from economic crime enforcement into a pooled fund for the purposes of providing multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime.(2) The assessment specified in subsection (1) must also examine the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. (3) In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the assessment by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, today we have discussed at length some very important issues that are also pretty bleak. It has been lightened for me only by hearing the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to as neutral, which is not an epithet that I would normally attach to him. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I hope that my operational amendment will conclude with a more positive and optimistic outcome.
I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me to discuss this amendment, along with Labour MP Phil Brickell who, with the support of the APPG on anti-corruption, championed this amendment in the Commons. I am also grateful to that APPG for the excellent policy note it provided to the Minister following our meeting. I thank the Minister also for his helpful subsequent letter of 9 December. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their kind support and for adding their names to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, wanted to be here but has been called away. He did, however, give me a statement, from which I will quote briefly when it is apposite.
The purpose of the amendment is to include in the Bill a requirement to undertake a viability study of the establishment of an economic crime fighting fund. I am mindful that this is Committee so I will mention only the following three summary points about the amendment. First, there are two statistics to illustrate the scale of the problem. Economic crime overall currently costs the UK £350 billion a year. That is equal to 17.5% of GDP, but we spend less than 0.05% of GDP tackling it. Also, of the £100 billion in illicit financial flows alone each year, law enforcement recovers only some 0.2%.
Secondly, crime-fighting agencies are currently trapped in a cycle of underfunding. The 2024 Civil Service survey found that only a third of National Crime Agency staff thought they had the necessary tools for their job, the lowest percentage of all 107 public bodies surveyed. This lack of funding limits vital recruitment, damages effectiveness and crushes morale. Meanwhile, despite fraud accounting for 43% of all reported crime last year, fraud prosecutions were down 50% on the 10-year median level.
Thirdly—this is where the fund comes in—despite the underfunding in the face of the almost overwhelming level of economic crime, the agencies still manage to generate an average of £566 million per year in fines and recovered assets. However, most of that £566 million recovered per year is not reinvested in fighting economic crime. Instead, most of it goes to the Treasury and the Home Office. Redirecting even a fraction of these funds to the key agencies fighting economic crime would be transformational.
This amendment would simply require a very timely viability assessment of enabling these agencies to break out of the current negative funding cycle, to fight more economic crime and to gain long-term sustainable funding for their vital work. Please note that the taxpayer would pay nothing. The funding would be paid for by the confiscated proceeds of crime—rather poetic justice.
I clarify the following points, which arose in discussion of the amendment after Second Reading. First, the fund would be wholly separate from victim compensation and would not alter the status quo in that area. There are also many cases where economic crime cannot be linked to specific victims—for example, where a criminal is laundering money from a drug-dealing gang.
Secondly, this is not a new or unique idea. All 13 supervisors for the accountancy sector retain penalties imposed for anti-money laundering breaches. The Ministry of Justice is permitted to retain part of the value of fines and fixed penalties collected, amounting to nearly £360 million in the financial year 2024-25. The FCA is allowed to retain a proportion of fines. This amounted to £71.6 million in the same period. These are just some UK examples. There are numerous other precedents of fines being reinvested, in the UK and internationally.
Thirdly, the current system is opaque and subject to the dreaded annularity rules, meaning that any money which the agencies retain must be spent by the year’s end or it is taken away. This encourages some truly bizarre behaviours to use up the money in time. One example we discussed with the Minister in our meeting was a sponsored yacht race.
There is also a specifically British wrinkle here. Police forces, as Crown servants rather than civil servants, are subject to different accounting rules. Thus the Met can keep some of the seized cash and spend it over multiple years, allowing it to plan and use it strategically. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe:
“The police force has been able to take a share of the criminal assets they seize, should a court so decide. Everyone accepts that the amount seized is a small fraction of the criminal assets out there. The police’s share of money is pooled in the Treasury and then returned to the forces—albeit that this process often takes 1-2 years. Nevertheless, this allows the police to invest in discovering and seizing further criminal assets”.
However, unfortunately, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot do this. They are, as mentioned, captured by Treasury rules that require central government bodies each year to return what they have not spent. This confused and chronic underfunding cannot continue.
While I welcome the Government’s anti-corruption strategy and their interest in improving the economic crime levy and the ARIS systems, recent discussions with HMT and other officials suggest that they are not going to do anything substantive to move forward, claiming there is a lack of data from law enforcement agencies on the return on investments from the use of these funds. I therefore suggest to the Minister that consultation on the viability of the fund that the amendment proposes would be the right opportunity to speed up the frankly glacial progress made so far on data collection in the Home Office.
Finally, I remind the Minister and the Committee of two things. First, the amendment would not require the fund to be established, but simply that its viability be examined. Secondly, there was and is wide cross-party support for the amendment in the Commons. Details of this support have been provided already to the Minister. I therefore ask him the following question. If, as he may indicate in response, he or the Government consider that such a viability study could be undertaken without legislation, will he commit from the Dispatch Box today to implement such a study and tell the House when it can be expected to start and to report?
I give the last word to the former director of the National Economic Crime Centre, Adrian Searle:
“Substantive and sustained funding … is crucial. The resource currently deployed is not commensurate with the scale of the problem … Doing the necessary analysis appears to be a no brainer”.
I look forward to any comments from others and hope for a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not normally get involved with money issues because they are too messy and convoluted. The last time I recommended any sort of money being given to the police was when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority. It was going to scrap the wildlife crime unit, and I argued strongly that we should keep it. It was not about naughty squirrels; it was about people committing crimes against wildlife. I felt it was an incredibly important unit, but that is by the by.
This is a growing crime. I can remember discussing it 20 years ago and people saying, “We need more money to fund the work and we need better systems”, and all that sort of thing, so it is surprising that we need this now after so long. It addresses a persistent weakness in our response to economic crime—the lack of stable long-term funding. Economic crime undermines public trust and causes real harm to individuals and communities, yet the agencies tasked with tackling it are often operating on short-term budgets, dependent on annual settlements and unable to plan effectively. This amendment asks the Government to undertake a serious assessment of whether a proportion of the proceeds recovered from economic crime could be reinvested into a fund to strengthen enforcement. That strikes me as an incredibly sensible approach; it would also stop the Treasury from grabbing the money and using it in even worse ways.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, economic crime is not a marginal issue. It is a national crisis affecting millions of people every year but, generally speaking, it goes under the radar most of the time. These are not victimless offences: they destroy life savings, devastate small businesses and undermine trust in our economy and democracy. When economic crime goes unchecked, it is not the powerful who suffer but ordinary people.
The amendment is modest and pragmatic. It would not establish a new fund; it simply asks for a viability study. I know the Minister is never keen even on turning a semicolon into a comma but, in this instance, it is not asking an awful lot of the Government—the Minister must stop stabbing his heart—just to agree to look at a viability study. It is really not a big deal. There are already clear precedents for this approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said; the FCA, the Ministry of Justice and parts of the police are already able to retain fines in different ways. If the Government are really serious about the UK’s reputation as a global financial centre, they must match rhetoric with resources. Can I persuade the Minister, for once, to move and just say yes?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving this amendment. Economic crime is one of the most pervasive threats to public trust and business confidence in the UK. In the year ending March 2024, fraud accounted for around a third of all crime recorded by police. Industry estimates suggest that economic crime costs the UK economy tens of billions of pounds per year, according to police statistics. These staggering statistics underscore the need for effective enforcement and resourcing.
In this context, the need to seek more sustainable and predictable resourcing for economic crime enforcement is understandable. The proposal to assess the viability of an economic crime fighting fund based on reinvesting a proportion of receipts from enforcement reflects a desire to tackle this persistent and widespread issue. I recognise that there may be merits to an approach that allows specialist technology and expertise to be built and retained over multiple years.
The amendment also calls for an examination of the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. There have been reports that recovered assets sometimes cannot easily be redeployed by front-line investigators and that incentives can be blunted by accounting constraints. If funds that are recovered through enforcement cannot, in practice, be retained or redeployed effectively by those doing the work, it is sensible to ask whether the current framework is optimally aligned with the policy objective of strengthening economic crime capability. However, I recognise that any move towards hypothecation of enforcement receipts raises potential governance issues, and there is also the question of how such a fund would sit alongside existing funding streams and the Government’s wider strategy in this area.
I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment. I would be grateful if he could outline what steps the Government are currently taking to fight economic crime and whether they believe that any further action is required.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not just for his amendment today but for his patience in sitting through the Committee debates prior to introducing his amendment this evening. I am also grateful for the meeting we had with him and Phil Brickell, MP for Bolton West, in October and the meeting we had on 18 November.
It is important that Amendment 482 is considered. It would require the Government to consult on the viability of a ring-fenced economic crime fighting fund, and the intention of the amendment is to examine whether such a fund could provide multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in support of the amendment. The amendment recognises the significant harm that economic crime causes—reflected in the contributions made—to individuals, businesses, the economy and wider society.
The Government remain committed to tackling economic crime. That is evidenced not just by words in this Chamber but by our continued investment through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme and the economic crime levy, which has allocated £125 million to tackling economic crime in recent months. These schemes are delivering state-of-the-art technology to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to stay ahead of criminals. It also includes an important factor, which is the recruitment of 475 new officers across the threat leadership, intelligence, investigative and prosecution capacity. We are putting people on the ground to deal with this issue as part of the, we hope, tangible benefits that we can get in the fight against economic crime. As a Government, we want to continue to work with our partners to ensure that we are most effectively investing the funding available.
I understand and accept—and did so in the face-to-face discussions we had with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the Member of Parliament Phil Brickell—that the call for sustaining funding is an important one that needs to be investigated. I want to confirm to the noble Lord what I hope is of help to him: the Government are committed to exploring the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement. This is witnessed by the statements we have made in the recently published economic anti-corruption strategy, which was published last December —particularly paragraph 42, on page 23, which I quote for the noble Lord:
“In the context of Spending Review 2025”,
we will
“explore the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement”
as a joint Treasury and Home Office priority commitment in that anti-corruption strategy.
This strategy is fixed and there was a timescale for it when published. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, will accept our intentions in identifying the issues that he has raised and not just doing what we have done to date, which is to ensure that we have put resources in already. I hope that that review commitment in the strategy from December is of help to the noble Lord regarding the objectives of his amendments here today.
With that commitment, I would be grateful if he would at least welcome it and hold us to account on it and, in doing so, withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
First of all, I can certainly promise to hold the Minister accountable for it, so I hope that pleases him. I thank the speakers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies—who have kindly commented on this amendment. I thank the Minister in particular for engaging with me before and for his comments tonight. I am still not quite sure what I am looking at. I think he used the phrase “exploring the funding landscape” a couple of times. When does that exploration reach its destination and come up with a report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have the strategy, which was published in December. It is a fixed-term strategy, which includes the commitment to examine the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. My time is quite stretched at the moment but, if the noble Lord would find it helpful, I am very happy for him to meet officials dealing with that aspect particularly. We can potentially explore from there whether his input is helpful in stretching that strategy and making some positive outcomes from it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I was described in a previous debate as a legislative terrier, so I can assure him that I would like very much to meet his officials and, if necessary, nip their heels, because I am after a date when we are going to find the result of this viability study. Let us leave it at that. I am very grateful for his positive response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Rural crime prevention strategy(1) On the day after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a rural crime prevention task force to develop proposals for tackling rural crime.(2) The task force must be given a remit that includes, but is not confined to, examining—(a) the particular types of crime that occur in rural areas, including but not limited to—(i) quad bike theft;(ii) equipment theft;(iii) animal rustling;(iv) fly tipping;(v) worrying of livestock by dogs;(vi) hare coursing;(vii) poaching,(b) crime rates in rural communities across England and Wales,(c) the current levels of police resources and funding in rural communities,(d) whether specific training in how to respond to rural crime call-outs should be undertaken by police control room operators,(e) the operational case, and the funding implications, of appointing rural crime specialists in Police Forces across England and Wales which serve areas that include a significant rural population, and(f) whether a National Rural Crime Coordinator should be established.(3) The task force established under subsection (1) must submit a rural crime prevention strategy to the Secretary of State within six months of its appointment. (4) The Secretary of State must, within a month of receiving the report made by the task force, lay the report and a written response to the task force’s recommendations before both Houses of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State must, within a month of laying their response to the task force’s report, ensure that an amendable motion on the subject of the rural crime task force’s recommendations is laid, and moved, before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime, makes provision for specific aspects of the task force’s remit, and requires the Secretary of State to bring forward a substantive motion before both Houses of Parliament on the task force’s recommendations.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for adding his name to our amendment and especially for spotting the rather attractive typo in an earlier Marshalled List whereby “animal rustling” had become “animal hustling”. The only animal hustling I am aware of is when my small dog hustles me out of bed in the morning.
I have tabled this amendment to probe the Government’s thinking about rural crime prevention. I appreciate that a recent rural crime strategy from the National Police Chiefs’ Council covered the years 2025 to 2028. It is very helpful to have that document and to see the priorities there. However, I do not believe it replaces a government-wide prevention strategy. Many issues would benefit from the Government having a complementary strategy, for example from the Department for Education and Defra, both of which have a huge role to play in educating the public with regard to the countryside and its wildlife on questions such as when lighting a fire in the countryside becomes a crime—something that is increasingly serious with climate change. What is criminal behaviour when you are in your boat and you spot a dolphin? I will not weary the Committee with too many examples.
Society as a whole and the Government need to take a role in ensuring that our rural areas do not become crime hotspots. Organised crime, sadly, sees rural areas as a soft touch. A big example of this was recently highlighted by your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee: fly-tipping on an industrial scale. It has become almost a full-time job for my noble friend Lady Sheehan to go around the country looking at these huge fly-tips. She has done a terrific job, raising awareness of the scale of the problem and eliciting some response for the Environment Agency and the Government. It is a question of public awareness, because it is important to report very early on where something is going to become a fly-tip. It illustrates how rural crime has become big criminal business, as has wildlife crime.
In hare coursing, for example, there is big money to be made through the bets placed. That is disastrous for farmers, driving straight through their fences and hedges. It is hard to stand in the way when you are alone and facing a gang. It is also hard to police in remote rural areas. I hope the Government are paying attention to that sort of crime. They should be praised for pledging to introduce a closed season for hares, which is an excellent thing to do, but it will be a shame if hares continue to suffer from hare coursing. Peregrine falcon chicks—not something you would normally associate with commanding high prices and being the subject of organised crime—have become such a luxury item in the Middle East that there is now a need to police peregrine falcons’ nests. Eel poaching—not one or two eels for supper but glass eels, which are the babies, all illegally fished—is a trade worth £53 million at the last annual count and is wiping out the eel.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I thoroughly support, despite it committing the legislative sin of having a list in it. It references animal hustling, which is probably already a criminal offence in a different area of the law, so I will leave that alone. The question surely posed by the amendment is: why is a rural-specific strategy needed? Not only does rural crime have specific characteristics, too often it happens out of sight and perhaps out of mind of the often metropolitan policymaker.
This concerns three related themes, the first of which is isolation. Rural homes and businesses are often isolated, making them vulnerable to crime, including violent and destructive crime, while the motorway network provides a rapid and anonymous escape route. A more recent phenomenon is the use, from the highway, of drones to scope out machinery or products for later theft —something we will return to with Amendment 486A. The police generally do their best to engage with the local community—I pay tribute to Leicestershire’s Neighbourhood Link scheme, which is local to me—but, on an area basis, police resources are spread very thinly.
The second theme is waste dumping, which has been touched on. There has at last started to be some press coverage of the large-scale and often toxic waste dumped by the lorryload at illegal waste dumps in the countryside, of which a growing number are now being recognised. Anywhere that a vehicle can pull over out of sight for just a few moments, there is constant fly-tipping of discarded furniture, building materials, tyres and unwanted household goods—to say nothing of the endless food wrappers, beer cans, bottles and seemingly ubiquitous Red Bull cans, which now form a continuous linear rubbish dump along the base of almost every rural hedgerow in my area. There is also the widespread dumping and then setting alight of stolen cars. Imagine the effect in a field of wheat when that happens.
I would also like the Committee to note that, in responding to a series of Written Questions from me, Defra—the “ra” does stand for “rural affairs”—has confirmed that it has no current obligation to address these matters beyond the immediate edge of national highways. Criminals know this, of course, and exploit it by driving up rural tracks or into fields to tip their waste.
The third theme is wider rural crime. I recently spoke to a farming family who, against everything they believe in, kill all the hares on their land every year. Why? Because, if they do not, violent gangs in four-wheel drive vehicles come and deliberately crash through their hedgerows, career across their crops and kill the hares on their land with dogs. Such “coursing”, as it is called, in some cases involves international criminal syndicates betting large sums on the outcome.
I could go on: churches are stripped of their roofs, there are armed gangs of violent poachers, raids and threats at village shops and post offices and widespread vandalism and theft. In short, rural areas are under siege from people who, with either criminal intent or anti-social indifference, are turning what we like to portray as a green and pleasant land into a rubbish-strewn hinterland whose population increasingly fear for their safety, livelihoods and property. That is why we need this amendment: to recognise that rural areas have specific characteristics, specific types of crime and an overall lack of focus, despite the best efforts of an overstretched police force.
Finally, I will refer briefly to the Minister’s answers to questions on the Statement on the police reform White Paper on Tuesday evening. He was asked a question on how rural policing would be covered. His reply was that the Government were looking at reviewing the funding formula and that the overall organisational model would include responsible, non-elected persons. I do not wish to express a view on the reforms, but I respectfully point out that he did not say anything about how rural areas would be affected by the reform.
Secondly, in response to a question on waste crime, the Minister said that organised crime was behind it—he was correct, of course—and that regional and national agencies would be looking “over time” at how to deal with serious organised crime. I suggest to him that a dedicated, rural-focused strategy is needed to prevent and tackle such crime, not just the Environment Agency, which largely deals with post-facto matters.
There needs to be a specific strategy to develop and enforce appropriate countermeasures to what is not a passing rural crime wave but a rising flood. I commend the amendment for highlighting this and I hope that the Minister and the Government will get behind it.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I seek to make a brief contribution to the discussion on this amendment. Noble Lords might ask themselves why somebody whose political experience was predominantly in a metropolitan area would seek to speak on rural issues, but I grew up in Weardale, in County Durham, and my mother still lives in the dale. From growing up there and from contemporary experiences, I know that the issue of rural crime is felt very keenly by communities in rural areas and can damage the fabric of those communities in a way that makes them feel further under threat.
To the list of examples of crime given by the noble Baroness who spoke just a few moments ago I can add the stealing of oil from fuel tanks, the stealing of logs from log stores, and drink-driving, which we know is more prevalent in rural areas than it is in urban areas. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing and reducing the drink-driving limits for the whole country.
In the context of this amendment, we need to reflect on why some of these issues occur in rural areas and what the root causes of the lack of response may be. Many rural communities have a greater sense of trust and of community spirit, but that can have a downside, in that it can make people more susceptible to fraud and more liable to be scammed, particularly online. Alongside the amendments under consideration, I welcome the measures to introduce stronger investigatory powers and a stronger national approach to such crimes. Although crime can affect people anywhere, for those living in rural or isolated areas without support around it can be quite devastating.
There is a challenge around the whole-scale withdrawal of police stations and a police presence from many of our rural communities. That has resulted in one particular case that I am aware of, because it affected my mother. She was subject to the theft of some logs from land that she owns. The police response in that area was, “We suggest you go out and buy some cameras from Amazon to see if you can record this”. I do not think that that is sufficient, appropriate or suitable in the circumstances. It implies that a small-scale crime such as that is of no grand consequence, but to somebody like my mother, it has a very real consequence, because it has affected her fuel supply over the winter period.
There is an issue about the particular nature of crimes that are more prevalent in rural areas. As we come to Report, I hope we can look more fully at ways in which the Government can work alongside police and crime commissioners, while they are still in existence, and whatever their successor bodies are, to ensure that rural areas do not feel second best when it comes to crime prevention and community safety.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his support, and those who have spoken already.
The amendment addresses an issue that has for too long been treated as peripheral: the growing crisis of rural crime. For those who live and work in our countryside, there is the reality of financial loss, fear, and a deep sense of vulnerability and isolation. After rising to around £52.8 million in 2023, the estimated cost of rural crime stood at around £44 million in 2024. Despite some improvements, the resources devoted to addressing this remain inadequate. Freedom of information requests from my party submitted last April uncovered the shocking fact that only 0.4% of the police workforce across England and Wales is dedicated to rural crime teams. In Norfolk, for example, there are just two dedicated full-time officers, and some forces have no rural crime forces at all.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling their amendment. As a rural-dweller myself, I agree and recognise many, if not all, of the offences that have been identified. Our rural communities are incredibly important. On this side of the Committee, the Opposition have made it an absolute priority to support them in this difficult time. That support extends past simply fiscal policy following recent tax policies to all issues that affect them, including crime. It is promising that, last year, rural crime fell by over 16%, but there is still work to be done. Those offences still cost rural communities over £44 million a year—a fact that underlined our pledge to set up local taskforces to tackle rural crime.
Our objectives are not different from those of the noble Baroness; we simply differ on delivery. A top-down, centralised approach is never normally the most effective way to tackle local disconnected issues, and rural crime is a prime example of this. It is far less the operation of the highly organised criminal gangs we see in our cities, and more often the actions of an isolated few who sense an opportunity to steal or exploit the countryside and act on it.
Localised problems require localised solutions. Police forces are budgeted based on local needs, and are therefore the most alert to the specific issues facing their communities. It should be them organising taskforces to tackle rural crime, as they have the knowledge and ability to act and adjust to the changing crime picture in their area. While we agree with the noble Baroness’s intentions and entirely support them, we would much rather see funding directed to local forces and delegate responsibility to them and their taskforces to tackle the rural crime that we all want to see curbed. I hope the Minister agrees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising these issues, and to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of her. As someone who represented a rural constituency in the House of Commons for 28 years, I can say that things such as sheep worrying, isolation and local policing were meat-and-drink on a daily basis. In fact, the north Wales rural crime unit was the model for a lot of the work that has been done on rural crime at a national level. I therefore appreciate and understand the problems that are faced by rural communities. I say to the noble Baroness and others that the Government remain committed to tackling those crimes that particularly impact our rural communities.
Noble Lords have spoken today about some of the government measures being brought forward, but I want to address them as a whole. As part of our safer streets mission, we are introducing important measures to protect rural communities that look at clamping down on anti-social behaviour, strengthening neighbourhood policing and preventing the very farm theft that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, spoke of, as well as the issue of fly-tipping, which has been mentioned by noble Lords today. I would also add shop theft to that. That is an important issue because, particularly in rural areas where there is perhaps only one shop, an organised crime gang, or regular shop theft, can impact small independent businesses very strongly. We are trying to deal strongly with those issues. Rural communities across England and Wales are already better protected from the rising threat of organised gangs, and we have new strategies to tackle crimes plaguing countryside areas.
I was struck by my noble friend Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who focused not just on the rural crime issues that I know he is aware of but raised important issues around fraud and the isolation that fraud can bring. I advise him that, in a three-year fraud strategy that we intend to publish in relatively short order, the Government intend to look very strongly at those issues and at what we can do in that space.
Developing a robust response to a rural crime is extremely important. I know that noble Lords have mentioned it, but the objective of the amendment is, as the explanatory statement says,
“to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime”.
I say to the mover of the amendment that, in November 2025, the Home Office, Defra and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Rural and Wildlife Crime Strategy, which, in essence, does what the amendment asks for, and which will bring together the points that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked for, with ministerial oversight. The strategy is a vital step in the mission to provide safer streets everywhere.
There is also a Defra-led rural task force that was set up last year—that sounds like a long way away, but it was just over a month ago—with the aim of gathering evidence through a series of meetings and workshops to look at the specific challenges faced in rural areas. The evidence gleaned from the workshops is being examined, and it will be used to outline the Government’s strategic ambition for rural communities.
Some of the points that noble Lords have mentioned today, such as tackling equipment theft, are a huge concern. I understand that. We intend to implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which will introduce forensic marking and registration on a database of all new terrain vehicles and quad bikes. I am also pleased to say that we recently announced removable GPS systems. Those are demands that I had just over a year ago when I went to the rural crime conference chaired by the police and crime commissioners for Norfolk and Cheshire. We have acted on that.
Clause 128, which has already been considered, contains a valuable tool for the police that will help them tackle stolen equipment. It will ensure that, where it has not been reasonably practical to obtain a warrant from the court, the police can enter and search premises that have been electronically tagged by GPS or other means and where items are present that are reasonably believed to have been stolen. That is a very strong signal for organised criminals that we are going to track and monitor them and have a non-warranted entrance to their property if they have stolen equipment—and we will hold them to account for it.
I was pleased to be able to announce last year at the police and crime commissioners’ conference a long-term commitment of £800,000 for the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Unit. We have committed to replicating this year’s funding next year, in 2026-27; in what are tight and difficult financial times, we have still managed to commit that funding to help to support the National Police Chiefs’ Council in achieving the aims of that strategy.
To go to some of the specific issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, such as hare coursing, the establishment of that unit and work that it has done, and through that unit Operation Galileo, has seen a 40% reduction in hare coursing—again, that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as a specific problem that has existed and causes great difficulties in rural areas.
We have also looked not just at the excellent work of the National Rural Crime Unit but, overall, at how we can tackle rural crime in an organised way. Again, I recognise that there are challenges. The Government separately, through the Statement that we made only a couple of days ago in this House, are looking at reorganising and shrinking the number of police forces, and we are going to have a commission to look at that, with a review, in the next few months to come to some conclusions. We are trying to centralise some national activity on serious organised crime, which is very much behind a lot of that rural crime. That landscape will need to be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to what I said on Tuesday night. We are looking at how we review the funding formula—that is important. Again, I cannot give specific answers on that today, but I would say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and noble Lords who have spoken to it, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that significant work is being done on this. We have a strategy and a task force; we have co-operation with Defra and specific measures being brought in that have been called for for a long time on equipment theft and wildlife crime, as well as on the funding of the unit. We have looked at a range of other measures that we will bring forward to tackle organised crimes in rural areas. With the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are looking at every neighbourhood police force having named, contactable officers dealing with local issues. We are putting 13,000 of those neighbourhood police officers in place over the next three to four-year period, which will mean that we have 3,000 extra neighbourhood police officers by March this year and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. That is focusing people from the back room to local police forces.
Again, there is a big mix in this, and I know that noble Lords will appreciate that it is a significant challenge at the moment, but I hope that that work is helpful and that the direction of travel suggested by the amendments is one that noble Lords can understand we are trying to achieve. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There was a theme running through the debate of the difficulty faced by those in rural areas of isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned that I was seeking a top-down solution—not at all; I think that I am probably in your Lordships’ House because of looking for localised solutions. But that does not replace having an overall government strategy.
I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that they are committed to the funding for that unit; that is very helpful. I asked specifically about heritage crime, besides wildlife crime, so, between now and Report, perhaps the Minister could help me and provide a little more on how the Home Office is co-ordinating with the DCMS. Might he be able to write to me on that and also answer my question as to why wildlife crime is not notifiable? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell
“Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels (1) A water or water and sewerage company (“C”) commits an offence where C has—(a) failed to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years, or(b) experienced an increase in serious pollution levels for three consecutive years. (2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “water or water and sewerage company” means companies which are responsible for the provision of water, or water and sewerage, services and which are regulated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency,(b) “pollution performance commitment level” means the level of performance on pollution that the company has committed to deliver, and which is reported against by Ofwat in its annual water company performance report, and(c) “total pollution incidents per 10,000km2” and “serious pollution incidents” mean the relevant figures under those headings reported by the Environment Agency in its annual environmental performance report.(3) If guilty of an offence under this section, C is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates an offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 484 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who is unable to be here, I shall also speak to Amendment 485 in this group on pollution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her support for both. The amendments address the critical, environmental and public trust issue of the persistent and systematic failure of water companies to stem the flow of pollution into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The amendments are designed to work in tandem as a linked pair of provisions specifically targeting persistent and sustained underperformance. They are not designed to punish one-off incidents. They are a measured response to prolonged and sustained regulatory failures that, in the public’s eye, have become a matter of criminal neglect.
Amendment 484 would insert a new clause into the regulatory framework, creating a clear corporate criminal offence for a water or sewage company. That offence would be triggered when a company already regulated by Ofwat or the Environment Agency either fails to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years or experiences an increase in serious pollution levels for three consecutive years. The pollution performance commitment level used is the exact target that companies commit to under the existing regulatory framework, which Ofwat reports on annually. The data regarding serious pollution incidents is similarly drawn directly from the Environment Agency’s annual environmental performance data.
A three-year threshold is a deliberate and calibrated response. We recognise that water companies can face individual problems from climate change, weather events, rapid population growth and other unforeseen circumstances. However, when failures persist year after year, are reported in black and white in regulatory reports but nothing is done, that is a different matter. By setting this three-year window, we would offer companies ample opportunity to correct their course. If they failed to do so, as a result of this amendment it could result in the matters being criminal.
Amendment 485 would build directly upon this foundation by creating personal criminal liability for senior managers. Liability would arise where a corporate offence under Amendment 484 was committed and the individual had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it. We have adopted a functional or a robust definition of senior manager, mirroring successful legal models in health and safety and economic crime already in legislation. It would apply to anyone who plays a significant role in making decisions about how the company’s relevant activities are managed or organised. This ensures that no one could evade their responsibility through misleading job titles or a corporate web of complex structures.
Critically, this amendment includes built-in protections to ensure fairness. The core requirement is to “take all reasonable steps”. A manager who could demonstrate that they have done this would have a clear path to acquittal. This structure would pierce the corporate veil without being reckless. Decisions regarding budgets and infrastructure carry personal weight for those who operate at the top.
Although there has been change, there is a lot that still needs to be done. Bill payers are facing a 26% increase in their bills and, in 2025 alone, supply interruptions across England and Wales rose by 8%. Even more concerning is the 60% increase in serious category 1 and category 2 incidents, which climbed to 75 in 2024. I recognise that we have had the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and the recent White Paper and that there is more legislation to come. We welcome a lot of the measures, particularly those in the White Paper. Regulators have also imposed record fines, some as high as £90 million, but we must confront the reality that we may have reached the limits of a solely fines-based model.
When penalties are too modest, they just become the cost of doing business; when they are too punitive, they risk bringing down the very water companies that we are trying to sanction. Despite these fines, executives continue to draw substantial bonuses. Shareholders continue to receive massive dividends, while the environment bears the scars. The public is being asked to fund a staggering £104 billion in the promised AMP8 investment, and much of it is publicly underwritten through government schemes. We must have a statutory mechanism that ensures that this money delivers verifiable environmental gains rather than just being siphoned into higher gearing and profits.
Some critics may argue that these amendments will deter talent and overburden regulators. I disagree. These provisions are carefully calibrated to protect those who work in this industry, and they could do exactly the opposite. They could attract into the industry those people we need who are motivated to make change. Having that protection of the “reasonable steps” defence could help to attract the very talent we need. These measures are in line with requirements of the Environment Act that the polluter must pay. For too long this has not happened, and individual poor performance has been allowed to pass unchallenged.
These amendments provide the precise tools needed to bridge the gap between reporting failure and enforced change. Persistent pollution is not a technical glitch or an oversight; it is a substantial betrayal of public trust and an environmental duty. These issues need more thought than I have seen to date from the Government, despite the legislation coming forward.
The new water regulator, when established, must have the necessary tools to hold individual companies and individual corporate members within them to account personally for any serious and persistent failings; otherwise, it will not succeed, just as other regulators have not. I hope that the Government will view these amendments as a timely enhancement to their own thinking and plans for further reform. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I love these amendments and wish I had tabled them myself. They are excellent. Water companies dumping sewage into rivers has been illegal for years: it is just this and the previous Government’s refusal to act that has let it continue without serious consequences.
The legislation allows Ministers to set a bar of what is acceptable behaviour and, so far, every politician in charge has refused to say what is and is not a major failure. The result of this political cowardice is that water companies continue to make a profit out of polluting our waterways and beaches, and the people in charge continue to collect their big pay cheques and bonuses.
Regulators such as Ofwat have been in bed with the water industry bosses, and the Environment Agency has lost staff and legitimacy. Labour are wedded to private ownership of water and refuse to consider public ownership, even though it would be the most popular legislation they could enact this Parliament. I keep making suggestions about how Labour can get some voters back, but it is not listening.
These companies are fleecing bill payers with the excuse that they need to carry out the investment they have failed to do for decades. They have taken the public’s money and given it directly to shareholders. They have run up debts to pay even higher dividends and the bill payers are now paying for those debts. What is going to stop them doing this all again?
These amendments take a direct route to stopping pollution by making this personal to the people at the top. If they do not spend the money to invest and reduce pollution, then that is a crime. They are taking the public’s money and failing to improve. My own preference would be to put them on long-term community service cleaning up the sewage from our beaches, waterways and riverbanks. I would probably put them in special uniforms so that everybody passing by would know exactly who they are. I would also put a complete ban on dividend and bonus payments.
I am happy—she says, through gritted teeth—to support this more moderate suggestion, as being something the Minister might accept. I would not give them three years to turn it around either, but setting some sort of firm deadline would be preferable to the inaction of this, and the last, Government.
Finally, the best way of stopping the crime of water companies dumping sewage in our rivers is to take them into public ownership. Reduce bills by reducing the money wasted on debt repayments and replace the current set of overpaid bosses with people who can do the job and care about our environment.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare a historic connection with the water industry in the sense that I was the chairman of a water-only company more than 10 years ago, but it means I know a bit about the water industry and perhaps that is helpful after the last intervention, because the truth of the matter is that this is not just a problem of the water companies.
First, it is the problem of those people who controlled the water companies. The way in which it was operated was a great mistake. There were two regulators and the Environment Agency was almost always overturned by Ofwat. Ofwat was leaned on by successive Governments to keep down the price of water. So I start by saying that we must have a system in which we are paying for the big changes that we know about—and, because I have been around for such a long time, I remember why privatisation took place. It was not anything to do with Mrs Thatcher wanting to privatise. It was because, when it had been public ownership, both municipal and national, there had never been investment. It is all right for the noble Baroness to say that that is what we want; if you look at the history, it is about the worst history of public investment that we ever had. We had Surfers Against Sewage and the filthiest water: the worst water in northern Europe. When we signed up to the water directive, as we did when were sensibly in the European Union, it was quite clear that we did not meet the standards. The Daily Telegraph used to say, “Oh well, of course our water is better than anywhere else because they drink bottled water in France”. The truth was that our water did not meet the standards of the whole of Europe.
The privatisation took place to get private money into the water industry, to make the changes that were necessary—and, for a bit, it worked. I was the Minister responsible after that had been done and it was murder to try to deal with it. As these companies brought new technology and the rest into it, they had to charge more and therefore we had all the arguments about keeping the water price down. Unfortunately, we have to recognise that water is not cheap and it is going to be more and more expensive. For example, Essex & Suffolk Water—which is about 200 to 300 yards outside Anglia, where I am affected, so I do not have a direct connection—has announced that it cannot provide new water for any new or extended industry until 2036. That is the effect of climate change and of not having the water we need.
We have to be frank about our problem: we are going to have to spend a lot more money on water, make it much more efficient, use new technology and do that through the privatised system that we have. There is no point in arguing about it; it is not going to be nationalised. The Government have made that quite clear and nobody else is going to nationalise it. So let us see how we can make this work. That is why I have come to be semi-supportive of this amendment: the reality is that we have not been able properly to regulate water and we need to do so. Directors of companies in these areas need to be personally responsible when, for a period, they have clearly not done the job which they are supposed to do.
The noble Baroness wanted us not to have three years. Frankly, you have got to have a period in which you can see whether this a persistent problem or a one-off. We are going to have lots of one-off problems. I know it bores the Committee for me constantly to talk about climate change, but the point about climate change is that it is really climate disruption. It means that we have very significant changes in weather which we cannot predict in advance and therefore we can have real problems, with so much water that we cannot deal with it or not enough water so we cannot provide for people. That does not mean to say that the people of Tunbridge Wells do not have a very considerable complaint about the fact that, yet again, they have not been able to have the water that they ought to have.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is very brave of the noble Lord to say categorically that this Government will not put the water companies into public hands, because they are famous for their U-turns, so who knows what is going to happen next week? Secondly, all these bonuses and huge payouts surely show a level of incompetence. They had the money to do the investment and they gave it instead to shareholders.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry, the second part of the noble Baroness’s comments are ones she makes about everybody who is in the private sector. That is what she thinks about the private sector and I do not agree with her. The Polanski mechanisms of this world are devastating politically and economically and, really, I am not going to answer that because I just think it is not true and is nonsense.
However, the first part is actually quite important. The reason the Government do not want to nationalise the water companies is that it would cost a great deal of money that we ought to use for other things—and it does not necessarily end up with a better system. I am a historian: I always like to look at what happened before. When it was in the public sector and was run by municipalities, we did not spend the money. That was the problem. And we still would not do so, because there is always something better to spend the money on immediately. We are politicians; you do it for what the next moment is. The trouble with investment in water is that it is crucial, but it is long term.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
First, I do not want to get into a spat with the noble Lord but could he not mention people by name in this Chamber? That is quite rude. Secondly, I am an archaeologist and I know exactly how these things start. The fact is, it may be that public ownership did not help but private ownership has made it much worse—and it is not true that I condemn all private businesses.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
We are straying away from the amendment and strolling into a bigger debate. If we can get back to the amendment, that will be fantastic.
Lord Deben (Con)
On the personal attack, Mr Polanski is the leader of a party. If he cannot be referred to in this House, I wonder what on earth we are coming to.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will follow the strictures just put on us to stay with the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as he still came back for another bite, that as someone who sat on the Industry and Regulators Committee that looked into the water industry in detail, I know that the Victorian system reached its capacity in 1960, and public and private ownership both failed in different ways for the simple reason that he gave: short-termism. That is the problem we face: the multiple billions that have to be spent over a long period, and no Government looking to get re-elected for the next five years will ever spend it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling this amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to it and contributing today.
Although we understand the noble Baroness’s intention, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to ensuring that our water companies act ethically and serve the customer. Neither do we believe that increasing offences for companies or for individuals is the right approach to decreasing water pollution. They are already subject to the powers of Ofwat and the Environment Agency; additional measures will just drive up legal costs and encourage hostile behaviour.
The Water (Special Measures) Act of last year placed a new duty on companies to publish an annual pollution incident reduction plan, and we should wait and see what the outcome of that policy is before we attempt to legislate further. It is undoubtedly an important issue, but we simply do not believe that this is the best way to go about it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it and speaking to it. I enjoy—well, “enjoy”—sparring on issues of water ownership and water companies. Usually it is in Oral Questions rather than in the middle of the Crime and Policing Bill but, hey ho, you take your chances wherever you can. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for bringing his sense of history and active participation over a number of decades, if I may say so, on the issue of water ownership and stewardship. I found myself agreeing—which may not be too strange—in no small part with many of his comments.
Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I want to be clear: as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the Government are not going to nationalise the water industry. It would cost around £100 billion.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to direct the noble Baroness towards Defra’s costings on this. You have to take account of all sorts of factors, including debt that you inherit as well as the equity stake of the companies that they are currently valued at. It is a very simplistic economics that leads you down the primrose path of the valuations that some people like to think it would cost. That is not the case.
I also gently point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the £104 billion that comes up in PR24 to which he referred is an investment commitment from the water companies. We are building new aqueducts now and we have not built them for decades, and that is one of the main reasons why we have continual problems of lots of rain but not enough water supply, to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred. Anyway, I will take off my Defra Whip hat and put on my Home Office Whip hat, and I will speak to the amendment.
Performance commitment levels, including for pollution, are set for Ofwat in the price review process. Where companies fail to meet these commitment levels, they must return money to customers through reduced bills in the next financial year. Companies are therefore already penalised for failing to meet their performance targets. In addition, this Government have already introduced the toughest sentencing powers in history against law-breaking water executives. Provisions in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred, extend the sentencing powers of the courts to include imprisonment in all cases where the regulator’s investigations have been obstructed by individuals and enable obstruction cases to be heard in the Crown Court. As a company cannot go to prison, the provisions ensure that directors and officers are held to account. The threat of imprisonment will act as a powerful deterrent as water companies invest in upgrading broken water infrastructure and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
The 2025 Act also allows the Government to expand and strengthen the current range of financial penalties available to the Environment Agency in a bid to clamp down on more water company offences. The Government have consulted on the scope for these new penalties and their value. The changes will make it much easier and quicker for the Environment Agency to hold water companies to account. Through the 2025 Act, the Government have also given Ofwat the power to ban executive performance bonuses where companies fail to meet certain standards. Since this was introduced in June last year, six companies out of nine—Anglian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water—have triggered the bonus ban rule, and more than £4 million of potential bonuses have been blocked. This is the legislation working in action.
The Government announced, in response to the Cunliffe review, that they will establish a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector, with the teeth to enforce the standards that the public rightly demand. We have also accepted the recommendation from Cunliffe to end the era of water companies marking their own homework through operator self-monitoring. We will introduce open monitoring to increase transparency and restore public trust. We have set out our wider vision for the future of the water sector in a White Paper published on 20 January. This marks the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. When parliamentary time allows in a new Session, we will introduce a water Bill creating the laws that we need to fundamentally change the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked whether the Government are committed to this. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year, our response to the Cunliffe review, the water White Paper and our commitment to legislate are a down payment on our commitment to do right by the industry, the environment, the consumer and those who wish to invest in our water system. I hope that the measures I have set out demonstrate that the Government and regulators are taking firm action to hold water companies and their executives to account for poor performance. For these reasons, in the knowledge that we will bring forward further legislation in due course, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken. That was a more interesting group of amendments than I expected it to be. I apologise—at the start I should have declared my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company.
This has been an interesting debate. My amendment was not really about the ownership or privatisation of water—my party has a middle way on that—but about ensuring that the Government have the tools to change the behaviour and direction of water company executives. I take the Minister’s point about the £140 billion, but a lot of that is underwritten. We need that to be invested to get the change. I recognise the issues of climate change and the problems that we face, but this amendment is carefully crafted and is about adding this extra tool to the toolbox.
Fundamentally, my worry is that when we create the new regulator, which I welcome, it needs to be set up to succeed and to deliver—when, frankly, no other regulator has to date delivered in this space. My worry is that fines alone may not be enough to change corporate behaviour. I do not want to come back in another five or 10 years, when the climate has moved on and the problems we face are worse, and see that more money has gone in but the systems have not changed. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and I thank all those who have spoken.
Lord Garnier
“Joint enterprise(1) The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 is amended as follows.(2) In section 8 (abettors in misdemeanors), after “shall” insert “, by making a significant contribution to its commission,”.”
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 486, co-signed by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is a probing amendment designed to enable the Committee to consider the criminal law on joint enterprise and the Government to tell us how and when they intend to reform this troubling aspect of our law. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regrets that he cannot be here this afternoon. He had wanted to refer to the law of Scotland, which I will not—simply because it would be a mistake for me to venture into that dangerous water. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, after having listened to what I have to say and endured my speech, might regret that he could be here, but I am very grateful to him for being here.
The instigator of this amendment is Kim Johnson, Member of Parliament. She presented a Private Member’s Bill to this effect in the other place in February 2024, and initiated a debate on joint enterprise through her Amendment 13 to this Bill on Report in the other place in June 2025. Amendment 486 is framed in the same terms, and its supporters come from across your Lordships’ House. Legal academics and practitioners outside Parliament have argued for it as well.
Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, if changed by my amendment, would provide that “Whosoever shall”—and here I add the amending words—
“by making a significant contribution to its commission”,
and would continue,
“aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender”.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will address the corresponding need to amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 later this evening.
The last Government rejected this proposal because they said it would be too difficult for the prosecution to prove a significant contribution. I disagree. This amendment may not provide the best or only answer, but the intention is to bring to Parliament’s and the Government’s urgent attention the need for clarity, and therefore justice, in an aspect of our criminal law that has, over the years, led to confusion and injustice, as our courts have wrestled with how to deal with defendants who agree to commit one crime but who go on separately or together to commit another one. Over the years, that has led to a version of the law of joint enterprise that has allowed several people to be convicted of a crime, usually murder or manslaughter, even if only one person committed the fatal act. In some cases, there have been demonstrably unjust convictions.
Let me mention a few recent developments. The first is the combined Supreme Court and Privy Council decision in two appeals, Jogee and Ruddock, from England and Jamaica respectively, heard in 2016. If I may, I will refer to those two appeals as Jogee. The question of law relating to the liability of a secondary party was whether the common law took a wrong turning in two cases, one called Chan Wing-Siu, in 1985, and the other the Crown v Powell and English, in 1999.
The Jogee appeals concerned a subset of the law of secondary liability for a crime relating to the person who did not himself forge the document, fire the gun or stab the victim—the person who did so is the principal—but who is said to have encouraged or assisted the principal to do so. There is no question that persons who are indeed together responsible for a crime are all guilty of it, whether as principals or secondary parties. Sometimes it is not possible to determine exactly whose hand performed the vital act, but this does not matter, so long as it is proved that each defendant either did it himself or intentionally assisted or encouraged it.
Jogee did not affect that rule. In Jogee, the court was considering a narrower subpart concerning secondary parties who had engaged with one or more others in a criminal venture to commit crime A but, in doing so, the principal had committed a second crime, crime B. In many of the reported cases, crime B is murder committed in the course of some other criminal venture, but this aspect of the law is not confined to cases of homicide or even to cases of violence. The question in Jogee is the mental element that the law requires of the secondary party. This narrower area of secondary responsibility has sometimes been labelled joint enterprise. To speak of a joint enterprise is simply to say that two or more people were engaged in a crime together. That, however, does not identify what mental element must be shown in the secondary party. The narrower area of secondary responsibility in question, where crime B is committed during the course of crime A, has been in the past more precisely called parasitic accessory liability—a phrase that I have to accept does not exactly trip off the tongue.
The two cases of Chan Wing-Siu and Powell held that, in the kind of situation described, the mental element required of the secondary party is simply that he foresaw the possibility that the principal might commit crime B. If the secondary party did foresee this, the case is treated as continued participation in crime A—not simply as evidence that he intended to assist crime B but as automatic authorisation of it. So the secondary party was guilty under this rule, even if he did not intend to assist crime B at all. This set a lower test for the secondary party than for the principal, who will be guilty of crime B only if he has the necessary mental element for that crime, which is usually intent. That was in contrast to the usual rule for secondary parties, which is that the mental element is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime.
Jogee held that Chan Wing-Siu and the Crown v Powell had taken a wrong turning in their reasoning. The decisions departed from the well-established rule that the mental element required of a secondary party is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime. They also advanced arguments based on the need that co-adventurers in crimes that result in death should not escape conviction without considering whether the secondary parties would generally be guilty of manslaughter in any event. The Supreme Court decided that the law must be set back to the correct footing that stood before Chan Wing-Siu.
The mental element for secondary liability is the intention to assist or encourage the crime. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance is given to a specific crime and sometimes to a range of crimes, one of which is committed. Either will suffice. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance involves an agreement between the parties, but, in other cases, it takes the form of more or less spontaneous joining in a criminal enterprise. Again, either will suffice.
Intention to assist is not the same as desiring the crime to be committed. On the contrary, the intention to assist may sometimes be conditional, in the sense that the secondary party hopes that the further crime will not be necessary. If he nevertheless gives his intentional assistance on the basis that it may be committed if the necessity for it arises, he will be guilty. In many cases, the intention to assist will be coterminous with the intention that crime B be committed, but there may be some where it exists without that latter intention.
In most cases, it will remain relevant to inquire whether the principal and secondary party shared a common criminal purpose, for often this will demonstrate the secondary party’s intention to assist. This will be a matter of fact for the jury after careful direction from the judge. The error, Jogee says, was to treat foresight of crime B as automatic authorisation of it, whereas the correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence—albeit sometimes strong evidence—of intent to assist or encourage. It is a question for the jury, in every case, whether the intention to assist or encourage is shown. The correct rule, therefore, is that foresight is simply evidence—albeit sometimes strong evidence, as I say—of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability.
The story does not end there, I am sorry to say—for those noble Lords who are still with me. For those convicted post Jogee, there is now a concern in the minds of some academics and practitioners that the Court of Appeal has subsequently lowered the conduct element and removed causation once again to widen liability through another error of law.
This criticism follows two cases in the Court of Appeal in 2021 and 2023, one called Rowe and the other called Hussain, where it was held—if I have this right—that, save for procuring a crime, conduct is enough, causation is not necessary and contribution is implicit and need not be measurable. The consequence is that the statutory language of “aid, abet, counsel or procure” is lost, and liability through complicity does not require proof that the accused person made a significant contribution to the crime in which he is alleged to have been complicit. Without a significant contribution, an alleged accomplice is not meaningfully involved in the principal’s crime.
Professor Matthew Dyson in his paper “The Contribution of Complicity”, published in the Journal of Criminal Law in 2022, suggests that judges should direct juries on contribution. This would retain the necessary derivative nature of complicity. Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who appeared for one of the defendants in Hussain, argues that the result of Dyson’s research
“is a much safer legal framework to ensure only those who make a significant contribution to the crime are at risk of conviction. The current approach fails to make it clear that there must be some nexus between the alleged acts of assistance and encouragement and the principal’s commission of the crime. Dr Beatrice Krebs has explained that without further guidance on the level of contribution made by the accessory’s action towards the principal’s commission of the offence, the jury has no tool to distinguish between an accessory who was merely present and one who by their presence has assisted or encouraged. Put simply—the decision in Hussain leaves a real risk of convicting people who make no significant contribution to the crime. The fundamental problem both Dyson and Krebs identify is the Court of Appeal focus on the accessory’s conduct rather than proof of the contribution to the principal’s commission of the offence”.
Dyson’s proposed test of a significant contribution, which I import into Amendment 486, is a measure that could have tightened the conduct element in complicity, just as Jogee envisaged greater care in fault.
Dyson argued that Jogee passed over the important issue of what contribution an accomplice needs to make to a principal’s crime. He submitted that
“English law is too willing to assume that such a contribution has occurred and has little detailed law to test for it”
and that a more rigorous approach is needed. He suggested a two-part approach:
“to be liable for assisting or encouraging a crime, the accomplice must make a substantial contribution to the principal’s commission of it; to be liable for procuring the principal’s crime, the accomplice must bring the crime about”.
Whether the accomplice’s assistance or encouragement had made the necessary substantial contribution would be a question for the jury. This approach, he argues, would be consistent with what was said in Jogee about overwhelming supervening acts. Where such an issue arose, a jury would first have to decide what level of contribution the assistance or encouragement of the accomplice had made and would then have to decide whether that had persisted to the point when the principal committed the offence.
The Court of Appeal rejected that proposition in Hussain, so, in addition to all those wrongly convicted before Jogee, there is a growing cohort of prisoners whose contribution to a crime has never meaningfully been measured. With no minimum threshold for the conduct element and, in murder, the consequence of lengthy tariffs on life sentences, this latest approach to joint enterprise contributes to overcriminalisation and overincarceration. Prison overcrowding and perceived injustice are, I suggest, a toxic mix. Absent a further case before the Supreme Court, we look to the Law Commission and the Government to find a way through.
In December 2024, the Law Commission announced a review of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. It will, among other things, examine the law on joint enterprise following the Supreme Court ruling in Jogee. I suggest that the published timetable for the review is too long: opened in August 2025, with two separately focused consultation papers to be published in 2026 and 2027, it will not report until 2028. Would it not be possible to conclude the proposed review with two separate, if linked, reports—first, much earlier, on the offences, and, secondly, on defences and sentencing—rather than waiting until 2028 to publish one final report? Depending on what is in the legislative programme for 2028-30 and bearing in mind the delays caused by a general election and changing political priorities, it could be well over two years before anything is done.
I know from my own experience in government and opposition in Parliament since 1992 that Governments are reluctant to do anything that looks like being weak on crime, especially violent crime, but getting the law on joint enterprise understood and settled in statute is not a sign of weakness but evidence of the search for justice. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for introducing this matter so fully. He started by saying that this was a troubling aspect of the law. I want to talk about how troubling it is and to reflect on the academic research which underpins many of the comments he made. I was a youth magistrate for many years, and my experience is underpinned by the academic research which I will refer to.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if ever there was a day to consider whether we should just assume guilt by association, then today’s political context provides us with a reminder that it is complicated. I have added my name to Amendment 486 on reform of joint enterprise, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Having listened to the elegant and legally erudite contribution from the noble and learned Lord, followed by such a well-informed contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am rather nervous that I am going to let the side down somewhat, but let me take a different approach.
Reading through the first-hand accounts in In Their Own Words produced by the Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association grass-roots campaign group that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to, really brings home that this tool of criminal justice is destroying too many young lives by incarcerating them for crimes which they made no significant contribution to. Sending people to prison for life and labelling them as murderers when they have not killed anyone, or were in many instances effectively bystanders, is something Parliament must address. Why? We have a responsibility to make sure the law is fit for purpose and applied properly and as originally intended. I think joint enterprise fails on all those counts.
I think we can all understand what the intention of joint enterprise is and was. Sometimes those who do not actually wield the knife do seem equally culpable—the armed robber involved in the heist that has gone wrong is the example always used. It could be deemed that he is as guilty as his accomplice who shot the cashier because he significantly contributed to the crime by, for example, carrying or supplying the gun or threatening the cashier. We can all acknowledge that in the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence a group was closely involved in the killing.
Interestingly, if you look back to the ancient history of the law, which was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in a Times article a couple of years ago, it also brings home that things can be complicated but people can be equally guilty. It began, apparently, with duelling aristocrats in the 18th century. The courts hit on the idea of reducing the number of duels by making seconds and surgeons liable for murder alongside the principals, so once more we can blame the hereditaries for everything that has gone wrong since—that was a joke.
It is important to stress that this is not about getting the guilty off the hook because behind each of these joint enterprise cases, the victims of crime, the families of those brutally killed, must not be forgotten, but justice for them is ill-served by overcriminalisation or overpunishment of the wrong culprits.
I want to use a couple of examples. Faisal Fiaz found out about the murder that he “committed” at the same time as everyone else because he saw it on social media. He did not know beforehand that there had been a murder because he was waiting in the back of a car as two of his colleagues in the drugs gang he was involved in went round the corner intending to steal cannabis from a local dealer. I want to stress that Faisal was no angel—he was involved in the drugs trade; he was a teenager in a gang—but he did not know that his gang accomplices were carrying a knife or that they had gone on to stab the dealer to death. The stabber fled the country to Pakistan and is still at large, whereas Faisal was jailed for life, with a minimum of 23 years, without any compelling evidence of intent or knowledge of the crime about to happen or even that it had happened. His presence in the vicinity and guilt by association was deemed enough to suggest to the CPS that he contributed to the murder in such a way that he is in prison for life. He was punished as harshly as he would have been had he wielded the knife, but I do not think that was the original intention, which was for the heist gone wrong or a duel.
That seems to be the crucial weakness in the current law of joint enterprise: the courts seem indifferent to the precise contribution to the crime of the accused, and this breaks the link between any action and accountability for that action. In this context, of course evidential standards are watered down and can even be dispensed with.
I was struck listening to Joseph Appiah, who was part of a group that clashed with rival schoolboys when he was 15. He was 200 yards away from the fatal stabbing of a 16 year-old. He did not stab the victim, nor did he see the stabbing, and he assumed that that would all be taken into account. He said:
“I didn’t see it, I didn’t know what happened and I can account for where I was, I could prove it. I always thought, well, you know, I didn’t do it, so when all the evidence comes out, eventually they will see the light, but that’s not how it went”.
Despite no DNA or evidence that he was directly involved or that he saw the act or knew that a knife was involved, he was found as culpable as the teenager who did in fact commit a stabbing.
Understandably, people conclude that the law of joint enterprises is so loosely interpreted by the criminal justice system because it makes it easier to secure convictions. It removes the faff of investigation, evidence gathering, proof beyond reasonable doubt and so on. In other words, it fuels cynicism in criminal justice. There are also side injustices created by the courts wielding joint enterprise as a blunt instrument. Fear of being convicted that way means that defence barristers have been known to persuade innocent clients to plead guilty to lesser charges such as GBH to avoid a trial of joint enterprise.
All these problems are well known, as we have heard. Back in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the law around joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn and been used wrongly for three decades. The court thought that it was rightly restoring the proper law of targeting those who intended to commit or assist in a serious crime. But, as we are all too aware, Supreme Court clarifications are not always used to rectify wrong readings of the law—the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has revealed that, in the three years leading up to the ruling in 2016, 522 individuals were charged, but in the three years afterwards, 547 were.
As others have noted, reform of joint enterprise has gone as far as it is possible for it to go in the courts, and it now needs a change in the law. I give credit to Kim Johnson MP, who has used her voice in the other place to draw attention to this and inspire us all. Her attempts have failed so far, but the Government should now grab this chance, here in Committee, to right this wrong.
I have some qualms with one part of this debate, however, which is the implication that this is an actively racist law, or, to quote Jimmy McGovern, that its purpose is allegedly
“to keep scum off the streets, that’s how I think the police see it. That’s how they see all these young people – as scum”.
I loved Jimmy McGovern’s powerful 2014 drama “Common”, but I do not think that that is what is going on here. Joint enterprise has been used by many in good faith to try to tackle the scourge and blight of gang violence.
Yes, young Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted for joint enterprise—there were also lots of young people, with 14% between the ages of 14 and 17 and 40% between 18 and 24, and 93% of defendants were male—but let us be honest: there is a real problem of young Black men stabbing each other. I live in Wood Green in Haringey, and it is real and it is not racist to note it. It is something we have to take into account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
We need them to understand that the criminal justice system is not targeting them personally for crime but is fair and proportionate. That is what we should do.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 486 and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his excellent introduction to it, which was very clear to follow.
Over the decades, thousands of people have been wrongly jailed for life in appalling miscarriages of justice because of the use of joint enterprise to charge those present with the commission of a serious crime. Sometimes that might be someone who was present and thought they were going to be involved in a low-level crime, whereas they had no involvement at all in the actual violence or murder committed by another but were still charged under joint enterprise as if they had also committed the act of violence or murder. That is very similar to the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave us.
Even worse, there are those who have been jailed for murder simply because they were present at the act of murder, although they had not been members of the gang involved. Over the last 15 years, this House has seen various amendments and had debates and questions trying to correct and clarify when charges should or should not be used for those who did not commit serious acts of violence. As has already been mentioned, a decade ago the Supreme Court recognised that joint enterprise had been used repeatedly and incorrectly in many cases, but nothing has really changed since then. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for quoting the figures for the three years before and after 2016, because that judgment has not changed the numbers either.
The key questions addressed by the Supreme Court, including what qualifies as assistance and encouragement, remain obfuscatory. It is still not clear whether presence at a serious crime is in itself enough. I will not repeat the data that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others have mentioned in the briefing we got from Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I differ slightly from the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is quite notable that over 50% of those prosecuted are not just young Black men and women, but there is also substantial overrepresentation of disabled and neurodivergent people, as well as many under 25. I might understand the last, but not the others on their own.
The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, would completely change the approach to considering who has been involved in serious crime. The amendment would ensure that, rather than guessing the individual's state of mind, associations and foresight of what might occur, the CPS must look at actual material actions, making that the baseline objective threshold for prosecution. I hope that the Minister is finally prepared to change the injustice in the use of joint enterprise and start a new era based on facts, not suppositions.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I fully support this amendment. I agree effectively with every word that has fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and almost every word uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Government will listen and give careful consideration to this amendment.
The law of joint enterprise has long been unsatisfactory. It was substantially improved by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Jogee case, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. The present state of the law in the light of Jogee is that an offence is committed by an accessory only if the defendant charged as an accessory intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence. Even so, the law is still unsatisfactory and unclear, as extensively supported by the academic evidence cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and it sorely needs reform.
The phrase “significant contribution” to the commission of the offence used in the amendment is apt. It would overcome the difficulties mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with the Court of Appeal’s position on the related accessory offences of procurement. The phrase has been proposed by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and widely by academics. It was the phrase used in Kim Johnson’s Private Member’s Bill, which was supported by, among others, Sir Bob Neill, who was then chair of the Justice Select Committee, and therefore one presumes by the committee itself.
While the expression may in some ways seem vague, it sets exactly the type of test that juries can and do recognise and regularly apply, rather similarly to the test for dishonesty used in relation to Theft Act offences. The amendment would make an offence of being an accessory much more comprehensible and justifiable than the present test. The present test, I suggest, focuses disproportionately on the mental element of accessory liability, whereas the amendment would focus on the actual contribution of the accessory to the commission of the offence.
There is considerable cause for concern that joint enterprise law in its operation is discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the research showing that Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted on the basis of joint enterprise than white people. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned the same research. What neither mentioned is that that staggering figure—I suggest that it is staggering—was based on the CPS’s own figures for 2023.
I accept that there may be cultural issues, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but they have to be judged against the caution that was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton. There is also serious evidence of unjustified, unwarranted group prosecution. There is significant concern about evidence of racial bias and the risk of guilt by association in consequence. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—that it sometimes may seem easier to prosecute for joint enterprise than by establishing individual guilt—is, or may be, justified. Concerns about guilt by association and gang involvement are entirely legitimate. I think they are shared by the public, and they are evidenced by the clear examples we have heard today. They evidence a lack of principle in prosecution and in the application of the law.
In evidence to the Leveson review, Keir Monteith KC and Professor Eithne Quinn from the University of Manchester argued that joint enterprise was overused. They went so far as to say that it contributed, as inevitably statistically it does, to the growth of the backlogs. They cited the trial of seven Black teenagers in 2022 who were accused of murder, where the prosecution accepted that they could not be sure who stabbed the victim, but asserted that all of those who went to the park where the killing occurred
“shared responsibility, at the very least contributing to the force of numbers”.
That was an inaccurate or, at the very least, incomplete statement of the law in the light of Jogee. Six of the seven defendants were acquitted, but the fact that they were tried and went through the period that they did prior to trial highlights the confused state of the law, which makes the essential ingredients of the offence difficult for jurors and sometimes even prosecutors to understand.
We should also take into account, particularly given the delays in bringing trials to court, the serious risk of charges based on joint enterprise leading to defendants who are ultimately acquitted being held on remand, as one of the seven defendants in the case I mentioned was for no less than 14 months.
Finally, I have a technical point that was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, to whom I had mentioned it. While I support the amendment completely, it needs to be reworded or supplemented to cover summary offences. That is because, as a result of the amendment of Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 by the Criminal Law Act 1977, the accessory offence under the 1861 Act applies only to indictable offences—offences that are either indictable only or triable either way. A parallel amendment to Section 44(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 is required to cover summary offences. There is no justification for distinguishing between them. With that rather academic point, I hope that the Government will act on this.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for bringing forward this amendment and for the care and intellectual rigour with which he has set out the case for revisiting the law on joint enterprise. He has laid out a clear case for why this area of criminal law generates much concern, not least because of the length of sentences involved and the understandable anxiety about culpability and clarity in attributing criminal responsibility.
My noble and learned friend has, rightly, reminded the Committee of the complex and often unsettled journey that this area of law has taken, from the missteps identified by the Supreme Court in Jogee through to more recent Court of Appeal decisions, which some commentators argue have again widened liability in ways that risk injustice. His concerns about overcriminalisation and the potential for convictions where an individual’s role is marginal are serious points that deserve careful reflection. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on them.
That said, while I welcome this debate and acknowledge the force of many of the arguments advanced, I am not persuaded that this amendment provides the right statutory solution at this stage. The introduction of a requirement that an accessory must have made a “significant contribution” to the commission of an offence raises difficult questions of definition and application. What amounts to “significant” is not self-evident. If left undefined, it would inevitably fall to the courts to develop meaning over time through case law, creating precisely the uncertainty and inconsistency that this amendment seeks to address. Alternatively, attempting to define “significant contribution” exhaustively in statute risks rigidity and unintended consequences across a wide range of factual scenarios. Tied to this, there is currently a wealth of case law that can be applied by the courts when considering joint enterprise. This case law would be made redundant in many scenarios if the law were to be changed by this amendment, which would surely not be desirable.
I believe that my noble and learned friend acknowledges that this amendment may not be the only way, or even the best way, but rather uses it as a probing amendment to draw attention to the problem. There is clearly an ongoing need to ensure that the law of secondary liability remains anchored to principles of intention, causation and moral culpability and that juries are properly directed to distinguish between meaningful participation and mere presence.
However, given the Law Commission’s ongoing review of homicide and sentencing, which includes consideration of joint enterprise in light of Jogee, I am cautious about pre-empting that work with a statutory change that may generate further ambiguity. Reform in this area must be evidence based and coherent. While I welcome the discussion sparked by this amendment and commend my noble and learned friend for his persistence in pursuing clarity and justice, I cannot lend the amendment my support today. However, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the concerns raised and indicate how they intend to ensure that the law on joint enterprise is both fair and clearly understood.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 486 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raises an issue that has long troubled the criminal justice system. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me sight of his speech in advance.
The criminal liability of secondary parties is an important but sometimes controversial concept in the law, and the Government acknowledge the anxiety over the consequences for those prosecuted and convicted as a result of the application of the rule. On the one hand, there are very real and understandable concerns. First, we recognise the anxiety that this has a disproportionate effect on young people and on those from certain ethnic groups. Secondly, it is a matter of serious concern that the law is widely misunderstood. For example, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in relation to her powerful speech, but in fact she said several things that were not quite right. For example, we have no law of collective responsibility, and mere presence without more is never enough to convict. Even lawyers and judges sometimes struggle with the application of this concept, as any of your Lordships who attempted to follow the limpid explanation of the law in this area from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, may well understand.
On the other hand, and seriously, it must be remembered that the reason why the rule exists is to ensure that it is possible to prosecute those who take part in group crimes—often, but not always, crimes of violence. Please remember that if your son or daughter was attacked by a large group, one of whom may have held the weapon, but others of whom were assisting and encouraging, you would want the entire group to face justice—more so if, because it was not possible to distinguish which of the many feet was kicking the victim, you could not prosecute any of them because you could not show which foot in fact delivered the fatal blow among the others which contributed to it. This is what, among other things, the doctrine of joint enterprise is there to cover.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is intended to probe the Government’s position. While the intention behind the amendment is understandable, as drafted, we believe that there are flaws in it which mean that it is not acceptable and would cause more difficulties than it solved for the courts which have to apply it. The issues about which the Government have concerns include the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about what would count as “significant”. For example, is purchasing the weapon or acting as a lookout significant? What about shouting encouragement or driving the getaway car? You could not just leave this to a jury to decide, because then there would be a real risk of unacceptable disparities in decisions made on the same facts. In one part of the country, acting as a lookout could mean you were guilty of murder, but in another part, on the same facts, you would be acquitted. You could even get those results in courtrooms next door to each other in the same building. Such uncertainty would make prosecutions in group violence cases pretty much impossible, as well as leading to verdicts which would not command public confidence.
There are further issues, one of which has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in relation to the magistrates’ court, but the amendment does not apply to the full range of offences because it does not address how it interacts with other forms of secondary liability, such as encouraging or assisting a crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The noble and learned Lord’s summary of the development of the law pre and post the landmark case of Jogee in 2016 illustrates, I venture to say, the great complexity of this area, but I reassure your Lordships that the Government are listening.
Mention has been made of the few important pieces of work that are going on in this area. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has said, the Law Commission’s review of homicide offences and sentencing for murder is considering the implications of the current law on joint enterprise. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concerns about the length of time, but I should make it clear that the Law Commission is an independent body—in a sense, that is part of the point of it—which decides how to run its projects. It is not looking at joint enterprise on its own but at how joint enterprise is related to homicide offences and sentencing. One of the things it is considering is whether we should adopt a first and second degree murder to reflect the different roles played in sentencing, if not necessarily in conviction for a particular offence. As the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a significant interaction between the categorisation of homicide offences, the impact of partial defences and mandatory sentencing requirements, which makes separating out of these aspects of the report more complex.
Secondly, the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals is examining if or how historic convictions are considered, which is a key area of concern for many people. Thirdly, the CPS has been consulting on its policies on gang-related prosecutions. This includes the controversial use of drill and rap music as evidence. It is also improving data collection on joint enterprise cases. As a number of your Lordships have referred to, last September, the CPS published its first annual data report on joint enterprise homicide and attempted homicide cases. The Government also recognise the important work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Miscarriages of Justice and the Westminster Commission, in which the noble and learned Lord is involved. I need not remind him that it is in the process of taking evidence and considering reform of joint enterprise, and we look forward to its report.
So, while the Government recognise the concerns about joint enterprise, and work is under way to address these issues, we cannot support this amendment today for the reasons I have given, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Can I just ask the Minister to reconsider, or at least explain, her argument that it is significant in this regard that different juries might come to different conclusions on the same or similar facts in different parts of the country, on one day or another? Is not her experience as a judge that that is an everyday event? Does she not consider that that is one reason why juries do not give reasons and are not asked for their reasons for any given decision that they make? Because it is a fact of life that we all accept.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Not giving reasons is of course one of the criticisms that is sometimes made of jury trials. In the Government’s view, the wider and broader concept in the current law of an act of assistance or encouragement, combined with the intention to assist or encourage, gives a broad enough scope to allow juries to look at the conditions in every different case—whereas, when you are saying a “significant contribution”, it would be a matter of value judgment for particular juries as to whether they thought that a lookout was a significant contribution or not. For that reason, we think it would introduce significant uncertainty and significant risk of disparity in verdicts.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been, for me, an interesting and educational 55 minutes and I hope that the Government will have found it so as well. Although the Law Commission is of course an independent body, I dare say it might be sent a copy of this evening’s debate, which might encourage it to accelerate the way in which it is looking at this admittedly difficult and complicated question. I do not think that any of us who have spoken this evening thinks it is an easy question.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Davies of Gower for their thoughtful and useful—I do not say “useful” in a demeaning way; I genuinely mean it—contributions to this debate, because it is, as I have said, difficult. The Minister was the first to accept that. She and I—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others—will have summed up to juries and directed juries on the question of joint enterprise in one case or another. I dare say, at Snaresbrook Crown Court, there were probably quite a lot of difficult cases that had to be dealt with. However, I do not accept the Minister’s suggestion that juries would find it difficult, or that it would create other sorts of difficulties, to work out what “significant contribution” means.
Juries can work out, following proper direction from the judge, how to deal with actions taken in self-defence. You could get a different set of facts which would allow the defence to run, whereas, in other cases, it would not. Significant contribution is not a difficult concept, and it is not one that 12 members of a jury, when properly directed by the judge and having heard arguments from the lawyers for the respective parties, the prosecution and the defence, could not grapple with. They could. One has to think not just about “significant contribution”: let us work out what “no contribution” means. What does “insignificant contribution” mean? It strikes me that by simply posing those questions, one should not be frightened of the “significant contribution” question.
As I say, I understand the public policy, I understand the politics and I understand that my Government in the past, and now this Government, are worried about being seen to be weak on crime. For goodness’ sake, we have heard that record played year in, year out. But I hope that this evening’s short discussion will encourage others outside Parliament to keep pressing their arguments, both in court and academically. I hope that those who have taken part in this debate will continue to press for reform in this area. And I hope that the Law Commission, if it is listening, will accelerate its process.
It is now nearly 7.15 pm on a Thursday and it is almost a capital offence to talk in Committee stage on a Thursday at this hour. So I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by finally repeating my thanks to all those who have taken part. I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cromwell
“Use of drone technology: offence(1) A person commits an offence if they use drone technology to—(a) conduct reconnaissance of land or buildings with the intent of committing a further crime, or(b) carry items including controlled drugs, stolen goods, illegal weapons, harmful substances, or other items intended for illegal use in respect of people, property or good order. (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have just been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Garnier, that I am about to commit almost a criminal offence by speaking at all. “We few, we happy few”. I will be as quick as I can. I start by thanking the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Hendy, for their kind assistance in considering this amendment, and the former’s very helpful letter to me of 29 January.
Drone technology has transformed many aspects of life and it would be foolish to suppose that it would not be used by criminals as part of their activities across the world. The technology continues to evolve, to become autonomous and t be coupled with AI. Legislation, almost by definition, cannot keep pace with such evolving technologies. While noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to tilt at AI windmills tonight, I put down this amendment to highlight the abuse of drones for criminal purposes just for reconnaissance and for illegal deliveries. I have been on the receiving end of the former, finding drones buzzing around business premises to scope out what machinery or products are stored there which criminals can later return to steal. I understand that drones are similarly used along railways, for example, to look for copper wiring to steal.
The Minister’s letter of 29 January argues that the necessary law is, on paper, largely there, and that the real challenge lies in practical enforcement. His letter explains that, while technically it may be possible to show that someone is, under the Theft Act 1968, committing the offence of “going equipped for stealing”, reconnaissance as such is nevertheless not a criminal offence, essentially because it is very hard to prove intent. I entirely accept this, and also the Minister’s point that it would not be practical or proportionate to create no-fly zones over every possible target of theft.
However, I worry about people who feel unprotected when drones are routinely flown over domestic, commercial or public property in a way that is plainly intrusive and potentially preparatory to crime. It seems that nothing can be done. They and the police must stand off and wait until an act of criminality under existing laws is committed. I suspect that we may, in that case, see people start to take the law into their own hands.
As regards the use of drones as a means of delivery, their use to get drugs and other items into prisons is already well known, but there is a growing and wider use of drones as a delivery service for illegal items elsewhere. I was recently told about a delivery drone seen regularly flying back and forth between a drug dealer’s hilltop house and the settlement below.
The Minister’s letter encouragingly points out that new regulations now require drones to be equipped with what is called direct remote identification, which works like a digital number-plate that can be detected, apparently by anybody with a smartphone, who can then report this to the police.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, as the Home Secretary observed in the recent White Paper, policing has not always kept pace with a rapidly changing world. Airspace has indeed become a new frontier for both opportunistic and organised crime. Drones are now being used by burglars and organised gangs as near-silent scouts, identifying empty homes, weak locks or high-value items through windows. The law can, of course, address the burglary that follows, but it struggles to capture the preceding act of reconnaissance. This is particularly relevant to rural crime, where drones are acting as the advance guard for the theft and export of GPS equipment.
In our prisons, drones are described by residents as “almost routine”, delivering drugs, phones and weapons straight into exercise yards. Ministry of Justice data shows more than 1,700 drone incidents in a single year. That fuels violence and instability across the estate. However, as the Justice Committee pointed out last October, the problem is not only the drones but the conditions that allow them in: broken windows, unmaintained netting and faulty CCTV. Creating a new offence may have value, but it cannot by itself remedy years of underinvestment in the prison system.
I want to raise two further concerns. The first is an operational one. With core capital grants under severe strain, how can we realistically expect overstretched forces to invest in drone detection and countersurveillance technology? Secondly, until national integration plans are fully delivered, data on drone incursions will remain largely trapped in 43 police silos, leaving us blind to the wider intelligence picture.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling his amendment. We entirely understand the intention behind it and support its aim.
In government, we gave police forces the power to intercept or seize drones suspected of being used to break the law, and those that attempt to smuggle drugs or weapons into prisons. Before the 2024 election, we announced our intention to implement no-fly zones around prisons, extending the current provisions over airports. We therefore entirely support the aim of prohibiting drone use for criminal ends. Using drone technology as a reconnaissance tool for a crime is self-evidently wrong and that should be reflected in the law.
Similarly, using drones to carry drugs, stolen goods, weapons, harmful substances or anything similar must be tackled by the police. For the police to do so, they must be given the means. Nowhere is this more evident than in prisons, where drugs and weapons are being transported in by drones in order to run lucrative illegal businesses. Reports suggest that some offenders are deliberately breaking probation terms in order to sell drugs in jail, where they can make more money. Anything that enables this must be stamped out. If drones are indeed a means of transport for many of these drugs, we should target those who operate the drones and play a part in criminal enterprises. I hope that the Minister recognises this problem and will agree with me that the amendment is entirely correct in its aims.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for setting out the case for his amendment. In tabling the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for Transport on the issue.
I think across the Committee we share the same concerns. I stress that the Government take the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously. However, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord that the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law so much as limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and in regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones while assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.
Amendment 486A seeks to criminalise the use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. The act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence, as proving intent, prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence, would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone for taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone. In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation—for example, the offence of going equipped for stealing in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.
The carrying of illicit materials, whether it is in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence, regardless of a drone’s involvement. There is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials. I do not think that the amendment would address any gaps in the criminal law.
The Government have already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, set out, with direct remote identification, which will improve visibility and accountability of compliant drones. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in-flight and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law.
I share the sentiment of the noble Lord and the Committee in seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment and let me sit down—as I have a cough.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part; I am not going to namecheck—you all know who you are.
It would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister, with his cough, to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I do not think that is a good idea.
I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as drone technology continues to advance. I cannot resist mentioning that, more locally, the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack—so let us hope it does not come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(za) sections 40 and 41;(zb) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified provisions.
“(aa) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
“(aa) sections (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) and (Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clauses (inserted after clauses 63 and 64).
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing amendments consequential on my new clause, (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36.
“(za) sections 40 and 41;(zb) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(2) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified provisions.
“(aa) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: England and Wales and Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
“(aa) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63).
“(ca) section (Child abduction: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Secretary of State to amend the list of prevention orders in clause 51 (inserted by my amendment to clause 51, page 68, line 30) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State under the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(c) regulations under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Scottish Ministers to amend the list of prevention orders in paragraph 10 of the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
“(c) regulations under paragraph 10(6) of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Department of Justice to amend the list of prevention orders in paragraph 10 of the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments to the process by which Welsh Ministers will make regulations under powers conferred by the Bill. Recent legislation passed by the Senedd created “Welsh Statutory Instruments”, which are subject to three kinds of procedure in the Senedd that are similar to the affirmative and negative procedures followed in this place. These two amendments simply update the Bill’s provisions to reflect this new process, ensuring that the regulation-making power conferred on the Welsh Ministers by Clause 192 reflects the provisions of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 as recently amended. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a short and uncontroversial amendment. The 15 days in Committee we have had on the Bill have been a very long but important process, and I thank all the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite for the many hours dedicated to the Bill so far. The amendment makes an amendment to the regulation-making powers of Welsh Ministers in consequence of the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025, and for that reason I have no objection.
“(8) Regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 192 are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).
““regulations” means regulations under any provision of this Act except section 201.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes section 40(5), which should extend to England and Wales only, from a list of provisions having UK extent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Schedule 7 (which lists the offences to which clause 65 applies) to have UK extent.
“(ja) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (5);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 in the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) extends to the whole of the UK.
“(ja) sections (Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence) and (Technology testing defence: meaning of “relevant offence”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to have UK extent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that clause 36(1), which inserts new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, extends to England and Wales and Scotland. At present it extends only to England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsections of the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) that amend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified provisions of my new clause (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36, to extend to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 105) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new subsection inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17 extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses to extend to Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives clause 28(2) the same extent as the provisions it amends, with the effect of allowing trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(ba) section 36(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for clause 36(2) to have the same extent as the provision it amends. It is related to my second amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
“(ba) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(4);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified provision to have the same extent as the provision it amends.
“(ca) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
“(ca) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
“(da) section (Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 64) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes clause 195 (extradition) from the list of provisions that come into force on Royal Assent. The effect is that it will be commenced by regulations under clause 201(1).
“(ba) sections (Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence) and (Technology testing defence: meaning of “relevant offence”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Scottish Ministers to make commencement regulations rather than commencement orders.
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(1) to (3), and section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(4) so far as extending to Northern Ireland;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for my new clause (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36, to be commenced by order made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
“(za) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland) so far as extending to Northern Ireland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) for Northern Ireland.
“(za) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(2) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the new provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.
“(aa) section 94(3);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the provision inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
“(aa) sections (Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland) and (Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to commence the specified new clauses.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the subsections of the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) that amend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland.
“(ba) section (Child abduction: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104).
“(8A) Section (Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity (Northern Ireland)) comes into force on such day as the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may by order appoint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Health in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new Clause (inserted after clause 105).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the specified new clauses (inserted after clauses 63 and 64) for Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers to commence the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders (inserted after Schedule 5).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Scottish Ministers to make commencement regulations rather than commencement orders.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 33, inserting a new subsection after subsection (8).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 33, inserting a new subsection after subsection (8).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 25.