Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

I give fair warning: we are in Committee and I am sure the Minister will be attempting to give us clarity, but I hope we can intervene to ensure that, when something is said, we can better understand the impact and intent of this clause.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and these proposed changes in detail during the four Committee days that we have set aside—although this one has been a little truncated. I remain open to listening to noble Lords’ views from all sides, and I hope we can use these sessions to put forward the best possible version of this legislation.

Clarity on all sides is important, and I look forward to further meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as the Bill progresses. He knows I enjoy meetings with him on the Bills that we have done together. Probing amendments are also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has just said. We were of course both involved with the Procurement Act and I look forward to discussing how the two pieces of legislation interact and how human rights considerations are respected—as they are.

I hope that, in responding to these six amendments, I can assure the House that Clause 1 as currently drafted is the most proportionate and clear way of fulfilling the manifesto commitment of banning public bodies from imposing their own boycott and divestment campaigns.

Clause 1 sets out three tests that must be met to trigger the ban. First, the ban is narrow. It applies only to procurement or investment decisions. Secondly, the public body must have considered a specific territory or country as part of making its decision. Thirdly, that consideration must reflect political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state.

I turn first, if I may, to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am grateful for his general support. However, together, his amendments would alter the scope of the clause. Amendments 3 and 5 would prohibit public authorities from being influenced in any way by foreign state conduct. This would widen the prohibition in Clause 1 to include considerations that relate specifically or mainly to a country or territory in a way that is influenced by approval of foreign state conduct. The current drafting prohibits only disapproval of foreign state conduct, and the inclusion of moral and political disapproval is necessary to ensure that the Bill does not capture legitimate territorial considerations that are not about boycotts and divestment campaigns and would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment. An example of this would include encouraging trade with important trading partners. These amendments would therefore prohibit a public authority from favouring goods or services from a particular country or territory, based on approval of that country’s conduct. It therefore captures a broader range of decisions that are not relevant to boycotts and divestment campaigns.

Amendment 4, on the other hand, would narrow the prohibition so that it applied only in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct within its own territory. It would not apply in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct outside its territory. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes: this would effectively allow public authorities to boycott countries whose foreign policy they disapproved of. This could leave a significant loophole—a word I think she used—in the ban and undermine the manifesto commitment.

I will now address Clause 1(7) in response to Amendment 6 by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. This amendment would permit public authorities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns as long as they were only a result of pressure from a third party, such as a student union, rather than a result of the public authority’s own moral or political disapproval. Subsection (7) is a necessary element of the Bill, as public authorities such as universities and local authorities are frequently pressured to engage in boycotts or divestment campaigns. For example, student unions at Warwick University and Sussex University have passed motions calling for their universities to divest from Israeli companies. If a university conducted a boycott or divestment campaign because of such pressure, rather than because of its own view of a foreign state, we would want that campaign to be caught. Subsection (7) extends to any person seeking to persuade the public authority. However, for there to be a breach of the ban, an enforcement authority must be satisfied that there is enough evidence that a third party influenced the public authority.

I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on decision-making, if she would agree, on group 2 because we are going to be discussing the meaning of a decision-maker for the purposes of the Bill.

Finally, and most importantly, I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Amendment 1 would narrow the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1 so that it prohibited public authorities from taking account of territorial considerations only where moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct is the “primary or sole” factor in the decision. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley asked a question which made this point, while my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar was concerned that it would increase uncertainty and lead to legal disputes.

Similarly, Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would narrow the prohibition to decisions “materially” influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. Like my noble friend Lord Wolfson, I do not agree with weakening the effect of the Bill in this way. Public authorities buying goods or services, or making investments, should not be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct to any degree, unless—and this is important—one of the exemptions, such as environmental or labour misconduct, applies.

I reassure the Committee that Clause 1 will not capture fleeting and inconsequential remarks made during the procurement or investment decision-making process. The Bill prohibits only considerations that a reasonable observer of the decision-making process would consider a contributing factor to a decision.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is precisely that point I want to better understand, because many decisions are going to be complex. While the Minister mentioned the exclusion of things, there could be a combination of issues which would influence the final decision. Somebody might be able to say, “Actually, that combination has become a moral and political thing”. That is what really concerns me. The Minister is very confident that certain things will not be captured, but I do not see that. I would like her to explain in a little more detail that final point she made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will try to do that. I am also happy to discuss this further, because it is obviously an important point in relation to the Bill and, as we agreed at the beginning, we need to try to find a way that does not create a lot of uncertainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, commented on the perceived lack of evidence for the Bill, but boycotts have been attempted by several public authorities in recent years. In 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion boycotting goods from Israeli settlements, as far as the law allows. Several other local authorities have passed boycotting or condemnatory motions, including Swansea Council, Gwynedd Council—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but on that point can the Minister tell us what the FCDO’s advice and the United Nations decisions are in relation to the Occupied Territories?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am certainly very happy to come back to that on a later group of amendments.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

But it is material to what the Minister has just said.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will see if I can come back to it before we finish. I was trying to give the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, had asked for. There was West Dunbartonshire Council and Stirling Council, and in 2021 Lancaster City Council passed a motion in support of the wider BDS movement.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to the first point that the Minister made. It is really important that we are clear about this, because one concern we have mentioned—I am not going to make a Second Reading speech—is the impact that this Bill has on the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. If there is a discussion about goods from and investments in the Occupied Territories, she needs to explain why she has evidenced that and how it is supported by the FCDO’s own advice and the Government’s support for United Nations resolutions on that subject.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly provide more detail of the boycotts, if that is helpful.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

No, that is not what I am asking. The first example that the Minister gave was in relation to the Occupied Territories. I really think it is important that we understand why she has referenced that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was giving a list and I will certainly come back on that question. We have a group relating to the Occupied Territories later on, when we can go into this in more detail. If the noble Lord can give me a bit of slack, I will see if I can get fuller information and come back to that at the end.

I was trying to answer the question on evidence. If I may, I should also like to cite, from September 2023, Islington Council passing a motion in opposition to this Bill, expressing its support for BDS campaigns—which everybody has said that they are very unhappy about—and resolving to:

“Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes”.


I have not covered all the BDS activity in public bodies, but I hope that this demonstrates to the noble Lord that there is a considerable evidence base.

Separately, I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about student unions and the provision of kosher foods in universities. We are going to discuss that point. The noble Lord has tabled some interesting amendments on it in group 3.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My point was not in relation to the amendment; it was in relation to the fact that a significant number of people in the Jewish community have said to me that they anticipate one of the key benefits of this Bill being that student unions will not be able to debate and pass BDS resolutions. My understanding of how the Bill is written and how it has been framed is that what the University of Essex student union has done, whereby it deemed its policy to be an educational tool rather than a procurement decision, explicitly would not be covered by the Bill. That is important, because the expectation is coming from multiple sources within the Jewish community that that is what would happen. Can the Minister clarify whether I am wrong on this, because my reading of the Bill suggests that I am right that—whether one calls it a good thing or a loophole—it would not be covered by the Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord is right—student unions are not covered, and I think that I made that clear at Second Reading. It is private activity. Clearly, what matters is the influence on public bodies, which is what we are discussing today.

To come back on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, obviously the Government recognise the risks associated with economic and financial activities in those settlements. We do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such boycotts are inherently divisive and could lead inadvertently to negative effects on Palestinians as well as undermining the aim of this Bill, which is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. That does not change existing government guidance on doing business in those territories. The Government do not recognise the settlements as part of Israel, as the noble Lord knows, and we have already moved to ban those responsible for violence in the West Bank from the UK—there have been some recent sanctions.

I have tried to answer the probing amendments. I hope that this provides noble Lords with clarification and a rationale for the scope of Clause 1, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am slightly better informed. We have many difficulties with this Bill. I must say that it would be much easier if it were simply a Bill about boycott of Israel and mainly about sanctions. It would be narrower, and we would know what we were talking about. But it is a Bill that is supposed to apply to every single foreign state in the world except for Ireland, which raises very large questions.

I disapprove strongly of the Rwandan Government’s support for M23 in the Congo civil war, and I disapprove very strongly of Myanmar’s behaviour towards the Rohingya, et cetera. Clause 1 is entitled “Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited”, which is itself a very uneasy label and not the sort of thing that ought to appear in legislation. I believed that I lived in a liberal democracy in which government’s reach was limited and free speech, as Conservative Peers are always telling us, is entrenched, and one is allowed to dissent. This appears to be extending the reach of government.

I appreciate that this is a DLUHC Bill that is aimed primarily at local authorities, although it is extended to include universities—and whether it includes student unions we will investigate further. As it happens, I had the current president of the Cambridge Students’ Union here last Wednesday, and I showed him a copy of the Bill—and he was convinced that it would apply to student unions; it is quite clear that some people would like it to do so.

There is a great deal more that we need to find out about all this. The closing down of public debate that the Bill implies is something that worries all of us a great deal. I am happy to withdraw my amendment for a moment, but we shall return to all these questions extensively as we move from one imprecise clause to another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, very many points have been made about how the decision-maker is established. From the point of view of local government, in local councils there are very many ways of taking decisions that can be individual or corporate. The tiers of responsibility and the trails that decisions make throughout a large organisation would need to be explored if enforcement action was to be taken.

In addition, councillors, committees or even pension committees, as we heard earlier, are advised by experts and independent advisers, so it is not clear where the line of accountability is and who is responsible, who is to be identified for enforcement action. The public authority, as has been identified earlier, is the body that is talked about in relation to Clause 4, but it is not in the Bill and does not relate to any other part of decision-making. I add my plea for further clarification as to how the decision-maker is to be identified and how enforcement is to be pursued in light of that.

As far as pension funds are concerned, as a former member I know that expert advisers do take account of political situations in their evaluation of risk. Again, that may be intimidating for councillors or advisers and inhibit the quality of advice that is given.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, seek clarity on whether an individual is considered a decision-maker for the purposes of this Bill. It was helpful to hear the introduction from the noble Baroness and her wish for general elucidation. As she implied, it is an important part of the Bill’s provisions. I will try to confine my points mainly to decision-makers, which are the purpose of this group.

A public authority will generally delegate responsibility for decision-making on procurement and investment decisions to individuals within the public authority. The individuals who make the decision on behalf of the public authority will do so in accordance with the public authority’s internal policies and structures. To address the noble Baroness’s question on enforcement, even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself. There is no personal liability for the individual. Individuals will therefore not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban in Clauses 1 or 4.

On the noble Baroness’s question on pensions—this is something I know about because I have served as a pension trustee, admittedly in the private sector—this is something we can come back to in more detail when we discuss Clause 12, but I will also look at the Local Government Association material that she referenced, which I am sure will be helpful and interesting.

My noble friend Lady Noakes made the point that there are some limited cases where individuals are the public authority in their own right. She asked for examples, so I suppose that examples would be UK Government Ministers, Ministers from devolved Administrations and police and crime commissioners. They could also be individuals such as mayors if they exercise public functions in their own right. Any individual who is a public authority in their own right is already subject to far-reaching and fundamental duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. They could be subject to court action if they restrict others’ human rights, and the duties in the Human Rights Act are much more wide-ranging than the prohibitions in this Bill. It would not be appropriate for these individuals to be pursuing policies that are not in line with the official foreign policy, which is, of course, set by the UK Government. To be clear, local authority councillors and university leaders are not public authorities in their own right.

Amendment 55 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance to clarify in what circumstances an individual is a decision-maker before the Bill commences. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to publish guidance on this matter, as every public authority is structured differently and has different policies on how its internal decision-making process operates. As it happens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, structures vary a lot, and that is the case.

To give the House an example, in the case of local authorities, they will have a scheme of delegations in place, with, for example, a commissioning board, which will indicate who takes procurement decisions. While the decision is made by the individuals on the board, they have been empowered to take those decisions via the scheme of delegations, and it is therefore the local authority that is the legal decision-maker in the context of the ban. This is made clear in Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself and there is no personal liability for the individual. Therefore, individuals will not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban. The concerns on this issue—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What the Minister is saying is genuinely quite helpful, but I am just trying to apply this to my experience of the real world. If a councillor, say, were to make a statement or cause something to happen at a conference or something like that, the council would be held responsible as a public authority for the actions of that individual. The trouble with that, in a way, is that that would then influence the advice, guidance and training that is given to elected individuals, and then you would get the chilling effect that we are all so concerned about. Just to make sure, have I actually understood that correctly? Is that what the Minister was explaining to us?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think that sounds right but, if I may, I will clarify if I got that wrong. To some extent, it is important in Committee that we actually understand what is happening. That is what, in the spirit of the noble Baroness’s question, I am trying to do. Even if a decision were delegated to individuals in a public authority, such as a commissioning board in a local authority, I think it is clear that the fine would be imposed on the public authority, not the individual.

I should briefly address why universities need to be in the scope of the legislation in response to my noble friend Lord Johnson, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We will come back to this on later amendments. It is an area of particular interest to a lot of noble Lords, not least because of the huge contributions people in this House make to the university sector.

However, the fact is that universities are a frequent target of the BDS movement, and some student unions —to come back to that point—have passed motions pressurising their universities to divest from Israeli companies. The Bill will ensure that universities cannot implement such policies in response to pressure from their student unions, as that would be divisive and could potentially contribute to rising anti-Semitism on university campuses, which is a concern.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Minister raised it—can she give us one example of where a university has ever succumbed to such pressure from its student union?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will come back to this amendment; as the noble Baroness knows, this is an area of investigation for me, and I am trying to make sure that we have all the answers that we need and can provide the sorts of examples that she and I are used to exchanging in trying to move forward legislation in a constructive way.

On student unions, I will add a point that perhaps I should have made earlier. Student unions are usually charities and can undertake political activity only if it can be shown to support their charitable purposes, in line with Charity Commission guidance. Any questions as to whether political activity was appropriate would be considered in line with the Charity Commission’s normal processes. However, I confirm what I said earlier, that the Bill is narrow, applying to public bodies and, obviously, to investment and procurement. I hope that that addresses the concerns of noble Lords.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The Minister used the word “pressurised”. Did she do so advisedly—“pressurised” as opposed to “called on” or “suggested”? Is “pressurised” defined in the Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think I used the word “pressure”. Certainly, I was reading “pressure”, but perhaps I blurred the wording and said “pressurised”. I could equally have used “influenced” or some other word. I was trying to explain what we were getting at on the education side of things.

I have a couple of examples of student union pressure, which I mentioned earlier. Warwick student union held an all-student vote in 2020 to pressure the University of Warwick to fully divest from all unethical industries and release all investments. That included divesting from companies in support of a boycott of Israel, and divesting from international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. There was also the example of Sussex University, which I mentioned a little earlier.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The thing is, though, as we are teasing out, is it not right that the Bill would not stop Warwick University student union from passing a motion in that regard? It would stop the university from acting on it, but no university has ever acted on these things. That is why we are all scratching our heads a little about what we are going to get from the Bill. It was a manifesto commitment—we understand that—but it is not our fault if the Government cannot turn their manifesto commitment into a usable piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was asking whether I was reassured. I appreciate that that was largely a rhetorical question, but I have to say I am not yet totally reassured. But I would be if she were able to furnish us with examples of higher education institutions succumbing to pressure from student unions to undertake BDS-style actions in relation to their investment and procurement decisions. That is really important for us as we make progress with the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for their interventions. I observe that, obviously, the Bill will make this boycotting activity by student unions almost pointless. But I say to the speakers that this is a group about decision-makers, and we are ranging widely into the debate about the exact involvement of universities, although that has been helpful in informing the next stage of this Committee.

Returning to decision-makers, perhaps I could just say in conclusion that I trust that this addresses some of the concerns of noble Lords and the noble Baroness. My officials will provide further clarification in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope, in the light of the explanations I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, that was probably a bit more helpful than I had anticipated, in that it fleshed out some of our really quite fundamental concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made a very powerful case for why action is needed to prevent some of the antagonism and fear, and those activities that have happened on campuses and elsewhere that we all want to prevent. But this Bill does not do it: it deals only with boycott and divestment decisions. It probably brings into scope people and decision-makers that the Government did not have in mind.

The idea that people who want to campaign on these issues will suddenly stop doing so as a consequence of the legislation is fanciful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said in his Second Reading speech, they will just change the target from public authorities to others. It will not deal with some of the unpleasantness and the atmosphere on campus. That will not be assisted in any way, and the way the Bill is drafted might actually make things worse. It will not deal with campaigns to prevent certain events or not to have certain speakers. Those things are completely outside the scope of the Bill. We are focusing on universities to make this point, but similar things could be said about local government.

I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, but I think we are going to end up with this discussion on most of the groups, because the Bill is so unsatisfactory and does not actually fulfil the aims that the Government say they wish to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I too associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, because the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done incredibly important work in tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that we remove it from all of our civil life. I pay tribute to him.

I will not delay the House too long, but the important thing with these two amendments is expectations. This is the problem with the Bill. While I want to avoid going back, we have made a plea—my noble friend Lady Chapman made it at Second Reading—that we want to co-operate with the Government to implement their manifesto commitment. I am afraid that this Bill goes well beyond that and brings into question other issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right to put these sorts of amendments down, because they address the concerns of the community. People often think when we are talking about this Bill that we are talking about consumer boycotts and consumer choice. No, we are not. It is about decisions over investment and procurement, but those decisions can involve the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is talking about—and we heard an example from the noble Lord just now.

How we manage expectations is really important. I suspect that, when we go into other groups, we will hear lots of concerns about issues that go well beyond the scope of the Bill. So I hope the Minister understands why the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has put these amendments in. They are to probe, but also to say that there is a problem, there is an issue and the Bill does not solve it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for drawing the House’s attention to two important issues with his Amendments 8 and 9. Like my noble friend Lord Pickles, who it is a real pleasure to welcome to our debate, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, I am really grateful for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done.

My noble friend Lord Pickles and I worked together in my retail days, when he was a leading influence in local government and I worked to have kosher and halal food in many of the Tescos that were spreading across the country. So there were lots of conversations over food. A focus on community concerns is what much of the probing has been about this evening—but that is for another group.

I remain of the view that we need to apply this Bill to universities as we are doing, and I am committed to having a comprehensive debate and discussion on the impact of the Bill on universities at the appropriate moment later in Committee.

As we have heard, the two amendments in this group would add two stipulations to Clause 1. Amendment 8 intends to ensure that the prohibition applies to a decision made by a university to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research university in a foreign state. The prohibition in the Bill already covers higher education providers in their public functions, including when their procurement and investment decisions form part of a research collaboration. Decisions relating to a commercial partnership are, however, likely to constitute a private function—for example, a decision relating to a research partnership to develop a new product funded by a pharmaceutical company. The ban applies only to public authorities’ public functions, as we have heard, and private decisions are rightly out of scope of the Bill. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, but it would be inappropriate to apply the ban to private functions, and it would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment.

We have been clear in the Explanatory Notes that Clause 1 is not intended to prevent a higher education provider deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom, if they deem it necessary in line with their statutory duties in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 or other legislation. The Bill is about ensuring that universities and higher education institutions do not have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy when making their investment and procurement decisions. It is right that the Bill does not stray into decisions that could threaten academic freedom, as helpfully highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who spoke at Second Reading. I am sympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making, and the Government do not support academic boycotts, but this Bill rightly does not interfere with academic freedom or private activity.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the Jewish community’s support for this Bill. The Jewish community in the UK is widely supportive of the Bill as drafted. Russell Langer, head of policy at the Jewish Leadership Council, provided the following statement in support of the Bill’s restriction on universities’ economic activities:

“Higher education institutions continue to come under pressure to adopt BDS policies ... This legislation will be a valuable tool in assisting our higher education in rejecting this effort”.


The Bill will sit alongside other measures that the Government are taking to protect academic freedom. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected and promoted within higher education in England, and it will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps in the existing law. Without action to counter attempts to discourage or even silence unpopular views, intellectual life on campus for staff and students may be unfairly narrowed or diminished, which is why there was a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to strengthen this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The Minister has just said that we need legislation to silence unpopular views. I have to say that, as a liberal, I find that one of the most illiberal things that we could consider doing. Did she mis-speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure that I said exactly that. However, there obviously is a problem in campuses and elsewhere with BDS, and that is what this Bill is about. I shall move on to Amendment 9.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

If I can help the Minister, what we need to silence is hate speech. The law is reasonably clear. It is not wholly clear—there is a blur between unpopular views and hate speech—but it has been settled for a long time that hate speech is not allowed. My test for this is when you hear something and it uses the word “Zionist” or “Jew”, if you remove that word and replace it with, let us say, “black” or “Asian”, it is then usually pretty clear that what you are dealing with is hate speech or racist speech.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. These are difficult issues.

I turn briefly to Amendment 9, which would ensure that the prohibition in Clause 1 applied to decisions relating to the procurement of food prepared in line with religious practices, such as kosher and halal foods. The ban established by the Bill applies to all procurement decisions, including the procurement of food where this is part of a public function. Therefore, if a public authority made a decision not to procure kosher food and that decision was influenced by moral or political disapproval of the conduct of the State of Israel, the Bill would already prohibit this. However, I reassure noble Lords that nothing in the Bill would stop a public authority providing food that accommodated the religious beliefs of its employees or its service users. For example, it would not stop a public authority specifying in a tender that it was procuring halal products. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Scottish Government: Devolved Competences

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Scottish Government regarding any activities it is undertaking that fall outwith its devolved competences.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and congratulate him on his recent appointment. I am sure he will prove to be a valuable Member of this House, and I look forward to working with him on all these issues.

It is a matter of public record that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary wrote recently to the Scottish Government to raise concerns about the need for FCDO representation when their Ministers were meeting overseas Governments. More broadly, as I set out in the House last month, the Government are also in the process of considering what further guidance may be needed for civil servants working in the devolved Administrations.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, that is all very well, but there is fury all over Scotland at the Scottish Government spending money outwith their responsibilities, particularly on vanity projects and jaunts overseas, while the services at home for which they are responsible are being cut again and again. I have had promises from the Cabinet Secretary himself that action is going to be taken. I have had Minister after Minister, including this current one, say that they are sympathetic to the point I am raising. When is someone going to grasp the nettle—I suppose grasp the thistle is more appropriate—and take some real action? If it is the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, then I will welcome him. Somebody has got to take action to stop this abuse of taxpayers’ money.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself will be able to take on the challenge of the thistle. I reassure the noble Lord that there have been official-level discussions on these matters, as you would expect. I am afraid that it would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary, but I will update the House in the coming months on the outcome of this work.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree, in pursuance to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that there has to be concern about the cost to the Scottish taxpayer of the Scottish Government taking unsuccessful court action to hold an independence referendum? They also took court action unsuccessfully to progress the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and, after a vast amount of work, put on ice unworkable plans for a deposit return scheme. Does my noble friend the Minister have any idea of the costs of these endeavours?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have no idea about the costs of those endeavours. However, I have no doubt that Scottish taxpayers will reflect on whether they were a good use of funds and whether the Government in Scotland should not be concentrating on the things that they are responsible for: health, education, social care and other matters.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, far be it for me to intervene on the internal squabbles of our Scottish cousins, but would the Minister not accept that there are many aspects of policy that are devolved, including cultural and economic matters, where there may be an overlap between the devolved powers in Scotland—or in Cardiff for that matter—with UK powers? What is important is that there is good communication and there is a respect from each end on such questions. When such matters arise, London, as much as Cardiff or Edinburgh, should inform the other about their interests and work in harmony to get the best for Scotland, Wales or wherever.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. There are well-established arrangements that underpin intergovernmental relationships. They do not always work. They are led by DLUHC, and I believe Brendan Threlfall is the director-general, working under Minister Gove. A recent good example would be the work together on green freeports—where there is overlap —with both the Inverness and Cromarty Firth freeport and the Firth of Forth green freeport. The Scottish Government have also been working on Project Gigabit very well, and the UK Government have contributed £50 million to this. It is important that people understand the devolution settlement and pursue the things that can be helpful on both sides.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is it not ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is complaining about the arrangements for devolution when it was a Labour Government that put them together? A Labour Government did it thinking that it would kill nationalism stone dead. A Labour Government have resulted in Scotland being the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, with the threat of people leaving financial services and other professions, reducing the tax base and making it even more difficult to correct the disastrous damage done by the SNP to public services.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can only agree with my noble friend, but I think it is a matter for Scottish taxpayers. I look forward with interest to the coming months and years. We need to try to work well together and be clear about the rules, but they were perhaps not perfect at the start.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, of course the Minister is right that it will be the people of Scotland who have the final say on the performance of the Scottish Government and their choice of priorities, and they will have the final say on the Government here in Westminster, too. But does the Minister understand that there has been—how can I put this?—something of a failure to respect devolved Administrations at various times by this Government? Does she also accept that the current system of joint ministerial committees has struggled to be as effective as it should be because of that, and that is one of the reasons that we have got to where we have with this issue?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I actually think that the joint committees are important and give a sort of discipline to business. Where I am with the noble Baroness is that it is actually important, on specific bits of policy, to work together with the devolved Administrations. Certainly, in the areas that I deal with, I really try to do that—with things like borders, for example; the country is borderless, so it is very important. We can always do better, but there are differences of view, and sometimes that complexity makes it hard, such as with statistics, which I was giving evidence on yesterday.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, Scotland has two Governments, both of which are dysfunctional and very unpopular north of the border. Will the Minister accept that what the people of Scotland would like is for each Government to accept their relative responsibilities, do them competently and not try to compete with each other to say how badly they are delivering for Scotland?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not recognise that as a description of the UK Government. I have tried to explain that we are taking a responsible approach. The UK Government make very large sums of money available to the Scottish Government—quite rightly—and it is for both countries to make sure that they are spending money well, in the interests of their citizens, in all sorts of different ways on which we have been touching today.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the UK Government suspended payments to UNRWA following the shocking news that its staff had been involved in the kidnap and murder of Israeli civilians on 7 October. How can it therefore be right that the First Minister of Scotland undermines UK foreign policy by restoring those payments? What are the Government going to do about it?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but these are matters for the Scottish Government to answer. No doubt Scottish taxpayers will reflect on whether the donation to UNRWA was justified.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, despite our having some years of experience now with the devolved settlements, we still have a separate Scottish Office and Welsh Office in London and seats in the Cabinet. The Minister will have seen the arguments made by a number of people on our need for a smaller Cabinet. Would not it be sensible now, in making sure that the devolved Administrations have a central link with central Government, to have one department for constitutional affairs, rather than a Welsh Office and a Scottish Office with very little to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think that the way in which the Cabinet is organised and the responsibilities of different Ministers is very much a matter for the Prime Minister, but I am glad that we have a new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Scotland Office. He has been an MSP, and I think that that will bring a new dimension to our discussions on this important subject.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with whose contribution I entirely agree, the Minister said that there were well-established relationships between Westminster and the devolved nations. But there is a report out today from UK in a Changing Europe titled Brexit and the State, which says that, particularly under the regime of the internal market Act, relationships are nascent rather than developed. The report very much focuses on how the Scottish Government have made a decision to remain, particularly in the agricultural area, closely aligned with standards in Europe—which means higher standards than we have in England. Does not much more need to be done to develop those relationships identified as nascent?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have not seen that report. Of course, agriculture is devolved to Scotland, and it is Scotland’s choice, if it wants to do things in a different way. I think that we need to move forward on the new basis. I have nothing further to say.

Covid-19: Lockdown Costs and Benefits

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

As set out in its terms of reference, the Covid inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations for and the response to the pandemic. We expect the inquiry to explore comprehensively the questions asked by my noble friend, identify lessons learned, and inform economic and other preparations for future pandemics.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is why I ask this Question. The inquiry to which my noble friend refers appears not to be looking at the value of lockdowns, which is illustrated by a letter, highlighted in today’s newspapers, by 55 academics, who say that this is what it should do. We all know the costs: devastation of the economy and of education—both of children at school and of those at university—worklessness, backlogs in the courts, mental ill-health, excess cancer deaths and an NHS in chaos. As for the benefits, well, some lives probably were saved, but probably more were lost because of excess deaths through lack of diagnosis and treatment. The Government did very well not to listen to the siren voices of the Opposition, who might still have us locked down in a bunker for ever. Who now thinks that lockdowns were a good idea? Will my noble friend commit the Government to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the costs and benefits, including voting on it, before contemplating a policy of another disastrous lockdown in the future?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the pandemic was an unprecedented event, and the UK Government came together very well to deliver an unprecedented response to save lives and livelihoods and keep people safe. It is for the inquiry, with the benefit of hindsight, to determine whether the decisions to lock down were appropriate and timely and to advise on lessons for the future, such as on cost-benefit. I cannot prejudge its conclusion while it remains ongoing, but we are all aware of the impact of the pandemic on individuals, society and the economy.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, may I suggest that the Minister takes no notice of the flat-earthers? The best estimate is that more than 17,000 lives were saved. That has had a massive effect on those 17,000 people and their families. I urge her to take no notice of those who do not want to accept scientific fact.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I note what the noble Lord says. It is important that these issues are considered fully from every angle. That is why the Government set up the Covid inquiry and why it is looking into many areas.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If the Government had not acted but had waited for Parliament to discuss the matter, they would have been in serious trouble. Is it not right that the Government acted immediately in the face of an unprecedented challenge?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to the results of the inquiry on these points. We expect to get some findings from module 1 in the not-too-distant future, and module 2 looks at a lot of the points that my noble friend has mentioned.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister would agree that policy-making is best done based on hard evidence rather than on opinion and speculation. In that respect, can she say whether the Government will publish a review independent of the inquiry of all the many academic studies taking place on the impact of lockdowns in the UK and elsewhere? And—who knows?—whichever side we start on, some of us may even change our minds on the basis of reading such a study.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that hard evidence is important and I too value academic studies. A lot of academic studies and reviews of the pandemic in other countries have already been published and are generally available. We are focusing on responding to the Covid inquiry. Clearly, we hope that it will cover all these different points and make sure that future pandemics are tackled as expeditiously and as well as possible, looking at the broader impacts.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I was the one who first mentioned the dangers of this virus a few weeks before we entered lockdown. On whether lockdown worked, at that time we did not know much about the virus or its behaviour. The proof of the pudding was that every country that had a lockdown benefited from it by reducing the rate of infection. The only country that did not lock down was Sweden, and it had a higher rate of infection than its neighbouring countries, Norway and Denmark, which had a lockdown just like we did. It was implemented to control the infection.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his wise observations. I would observe that the health of the economy and the health of the population tend to go in tandem, and that was one of the things that we noted during the pandemic. However, I come back to my point that the inquiry needs to look at these things for us. We need to learn the lessons and look at evidence objectively.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout the pandemic, the great British public stepped up, stuck to the rules and did everything asked of them, from staying indoors to volunteering at vaccine centres. There is plenty to be learned about what worked and what did not, not least when it comes to government procurement. While the Minister is in this reflective mood, can she tell us what is to stop the same wasteful approach to emergency contracting rules that we saw during the pandemic, with friends and donors of the Tory party given fast-track VIP access while decent, skilled, local businesses were denied the same opportunity?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I cannot accept that conclusion. Due diligence was carried out on all companies that were referred to the Department of Health and Social Care, and companies were subject to the same checks. However, module 5 of the inquiry will look at procurement. The noble Baroness and I worked on changes to the Procurement Act, not least to bring in a higher degree of transparency and to make sure that we have more competition in procurement, which I am sure will be helpful in a future pandemic.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, given the acceptance now of the damage that can be inflicted by the Covid booster vaccinations causing heart problems, what steps are the Government taking to establish the extent of this and what advice are they giving to the medical profession?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is more a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care than for me, but module 4 will look at vaccines, therapeutics and antiviral treatments across the UK. It is a public inquiry, and it is legitimate for people to make points from different perspectives. I welcome those, and I welcome the openness of this debate.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I am grateful to the Minister for how much she wants to take note of whatever emerges from the inquiry of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. Why then are Government already unpicking some of the very practical arrangements that were put in place during the pandemic? If the Minister wants evidence of that, perhaps she should listen to Kate Bingham’s interview on the “Today” programme on Monday morning, where she highlighted that the Government are dismantling some of the arrangements that might protect us against future pandemics.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As it happens, I listened to Dame Kate Bingham, who we can all agree did such a good job with the Vaccine Taskforce. The decision on the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, which I think the noble Lord refers to, was made by the board of directors, but I should mention all the other things that have been going on to make sure that we have future access to vaccines. There is a 10-year strategic partnership with Moderna; there is an advance purchase agreement with CSL Seqirus; and my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced a terrific investment in a £450 million manufacturing site in Liverpool. All these are informed by what we need to do as a result of the dreadful pandemic.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately I will not be in the House tomorrow because I will be giving evidence to the Scottish Covid inquiry on the experience of people with cerebral palsy during the pandemic. Does the Minister agree—this is one of the things that has struck me, as I will be saying tomorrow—that when judgments were made about what services were essential and should not be locked down, what was deemed essential did not take into account some of the most vulnerable in our society? Can she assure me that, whether it is from the Covid inquiry or in any other policy area, we will take note of the experience of all our population for future reference?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much agree with my noble friend about the importance of looking after the poorest in society and I hope that it will be a focus of the inquiry, particularly in its module on the care sector. More broadly, my noble friend makes good points. The Government did a lot, but the question is how we can do the very best in future.

Ministers: Legal Costs

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of taxpayer-funded legal costs incurred by Government Ministers, following the recent libel settlement funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, in line with established practice under multiple Administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister. As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are

“indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity will cover the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister”.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Prime Minister put it rather differently. He said

“it is a long-standing convention stretching back many years … that the government will fund those legal disputes when it relates to government ministers doing their work”.

How can making party-political libel posts on X on Friday at midnight constitute “Ministers doing their work”? Why should this settlement come out of the public purse? Is this not a breach of the Ministerial Code, after all?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I said, it is long-standing practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State concerned made a statement this morning at the Lords Science and Technology Committee and explained the circumstances in full, including how she was engaged in official work and got support from officials on the disputed letter.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister just explain how all of that works if this was a post on X at midnight?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think the Secretary of State explained very fully. It took the course of two days to draft, clear and send the letter to UKRI’s CEO to ask for an investigation. She highlighted it on X, using the same medium as the original issue.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister about the Civil Service dimension of this? It is reported that a number of senior civil servants were working until midnight on a Friday evening on a non-emergency text message that the Secretary of State wished to send. This seems an entirely unreasonable use of civil servants’ time. Civil servants do work out of hours, but only for emergencies. If they are asked to work late into the night and over the weekend, that is an abuse by Ministers of civil servants.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Secretary of State has explained her actions fully. I refer noble Lords to her statement. The important thing is that legal advice was taken, and subsequently there was a full and final settlement of the dispute. The Secretary of State made it clear that she should have sent the letter in confidence to UKRI and apologised for that. The basic principle is that it is very important that Ministers can seek advice on work that they carry out as part of their official duties, otherwise there would be a chilling effect on public life. This has been important to all Administrations.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, if the chilling effect were to extend to preventing Ministers posting things on social media at midnight, we might all be able to live with that. The Minister said that the indemnity covered the activities of her fellow Minister while fulfilling her duties, so can she advise the House which of her ministerial responsibilities the Secretary of State’s comments attacking two academics were fulfilling? Will she also explain why the taxpayer should foot the bill for a blatant abuse of position and power by the Secretary of State that further undermines the standing of the very UK research institution that her department is supposed to be promoting?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Secretary of State is responsible for the non-departmental public body UK Research and Innovation. She was operating in that context. Her intentions were always to do the right thing. It is very important that Ministers can do this. Of course, insurance is available to MPs, which is provided by the House at the taxpayers’ expense, in cases where professional indemnity insurance covers defamation. The House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to Peers. Of course, there is indemnity insurance in the private sector because directors have to act in good faith and in the wider interest.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, might I suggest that the protection should last only while pub hours are in place, because it is quite clear what happened in this case?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The truth is—as I know well—that as a Government Minister you do work late. Government officials often work late as well. This is a serious point about how to make sure that Ministers are properly advised on issues. That is what happened on this occasion.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government seem very keen to lecture everybody else about extremism these days. Would they like to take a look closer to home at the extremism in their own ranks, in particular from very major donors?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On extremism, as the Prime Minister said in his very important speech two weeks ago, we have seen an unacceptable rise in extremist activity that seeks to divide our society and hijack our democratic institutions. It is our duty to ensure that the Government have all the tools that they need to tackle this ever-evolving threat.

[Lord Drayson (Lab)]

My Lords, part of the role of the Science Minister is to champion the scientific community within government and to protect it from political interference. What action are the Government taking to repair the damage caused by the Secretary of State’s highly regrettable actions and the libel case that followed?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see it that way. The Secretary of State gave evidence this morning to the Lords Science and Technology Committee. There was a brief discussion of this matter. They then moved on to discuss important points about science, which she and this Government are extremely supportive of and have done so much to make sure that the UK is one of the leaders in the world in science and technology matters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, is this not another case of the Government marking their own homework? What is the Government’s ethics adviser saying about this? Have the Government taken a proper view from the ethics adviser?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Advice to the Prime Minister, including from the ethics adviser, is not something that we would comment on.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

I am sympathetic to the Minister, who is prone to having hospital passes from her colleagues that do not help her at all. Does she really think that her explanation at the Dispatch Box will convince the British public, let alone the Daily Mail?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The statement the Secretary of State made this morning was full and clear. I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary of State. The action she took in the aftermath of 7 October was very understandable. We have now moved forward and resolved this. We should be caring about how we improve science and technology in this country.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that she is now clear that she should have sent the letter privately. Was she advised by her officials working at that time of night that it would be appropriate to send part of it on X? If she was not then she was acting with her own personal judgment on the issue, so why is the taxpayer having to pay for that error?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have explained the circumstances about why the taxpayer gets involved in legal expenses. I note the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I was there when the Secretary of State gave her statement to the Science and Technology Committee this morning and was remarkably unconvinced, particularly by the Permanent Secretary’s assertion that all the aspects of this case had been discussed with legal and technical advisers before the relevant tweet was made. I simply ask the Minister: does she think that was valid advice? Is this the way the Government think a senior Cabinet Minister should communicate with the body for which she has responsibility?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My understanding is that the legal expenditure was approved by the department’s accounting officer. That was made clear. I believe that the Permanent Secretary was there with the Secretary of State. I refer noble Lords to her statement, to all that she has done, and to the fact that she apologised to move this matter on.

UK Population Growth

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent forecast by the Office for National Statistics that between 2021 and 2036 the UK population will grow by 9.9 per cent, to 73.7 million persons.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK population is projected to increase by 6.6 million, or 9.9%, by mid-2036. Of the total projected increase, 0.5 million is projected to result from the higher number of births than deaths, and 6.1 million from net international migration. The projections make no attempt to account for the impact of future policy on population movements or behaviours.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend confirms, over 92% of the projected increase is expected to arise from net migration and is therefore a political choice. The answer I was rather hoping for from my noble friend was that the Government would take steps in terms of policy to ensure that that figure did not, in fact, eventuate, or at least would be permitted to do so only after the most careful consultation with public opinion, and after preparation of a robust plan for providing the infrastructure and housing necessary to sustain it. Would my noble friend like to have another go and see whether she can force words along those lines through her lips?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government have made it quite clear that the most recent immigration figures are much too high, and that of course causes problems of the kind that my noble friend has suggested in areas such as housing. However, we have taken actions that are expected to lead to a significant fall in the number of dependants, and from tightening financial requirements—a fall of about 300,000 on last year’s figures. Some come in in January, some in March and some in April. When they fully take effect on the ONS figures—which will not be until the end of the year, at the earliest—we can of course take another look.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, of the proposed increase, how many are going to be asylum seekers?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The projections do not break the individual categories down in that way. They are, as the noble Lord probably knows, put together by expert panels and they are projections. They look quite a lot at the last 10 years, as well as at what else might be happening. I emphasise the point that they do not attempt to account for the impact of future policy changes.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the figures show that immigration will account for 92% of our population increase in the next 15 years. That is five times the population of Birmingham, our own second-largest city. Furthermore, in the 20 years since the 2001 census, the Muslim population of England and Wales has more than doubled from 1.6 million to 3.9 million. These are very large numbers and, if that rate were to continue, it would surely have a considerable impact on social cohesion. When will the Government face up to the situation and take effective action to reduce the scale of immigration, which is having such a massive, unspoken impact on our society?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. As I have explained, the Government are clear that the immigration figures are too high and have taken a series of actions, including stopping care workers bringing dependants, limiting the dependants coming in as the families of non-PhD or research-based students, changing the minimum income for family visas and increasing the earnings threshold. These changes will take time to have an effect, but the noble Lord is of course right to point to the changes that have happened over the last few years and produced an unacceptable situation.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, looking at the figures, we know that we are all living longer and that the number of people reaching the age of 100 has doubled since 2002 and will continue to do so. Has any analysis been done on the number of doctors, nurses, care workers and teachers who will be required to look after us?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The analysis by the ONS does not go into that, but we have published the long-term workforce plan for the NHS, which has been accompanied by the largest ever injection into various things such as NHS scanners. Our plan is to recruit and train more doctors and nurses in Britain, which will be supported by over £2 billion over the next five years. Indeed, some of the immigration is NHS workers who have come to help the country deal with its problems.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, one of the reasons we are told that we are witnessing record levels of net immigration—745,000 in 2022—is that there are currently 900,000 job vacancies in this country, but UK unemployment is at an almost record historic low of 3.8%. It seems to me that the problem is that there are now 5.6 million people in this country on out-of-work benefits and an alarming 4,000 new applications for those benefits every single day. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that that is neither desirable nor sustainable?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The figure for June 2023 was actually down to 672,000 people, but my noble friend is right to point to the problem of underemployment. The focus of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in changing the benefits system and helping people into work is to improve skills so that everybody in this country who can possibly do a job has one, because that is very much related to contentment and happiness—certainly in my own experience. It is a very important area of work that this Government have truly underlined.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the UK population is increasing, but it is also ageing, with a declining proportion of the population now of working age. There were just over 600,000 live births in England and Wales in 2022, which was a 3.1% decrease from the previous year and the lowest number for 20 years. That means that the current UK fertility rate is about 1.5 children per woman, the lowest since records began in 1939. Does the Minister agree with Professor Jonathan Portes from King’s College, who said that

“the impact of the housing crisis on young couples, sharp cuts to financial support for low income families, and access to childcare are all likely factors”?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The interesting thing about the fertility figure, which the noble Baroness rightly mentioned, is that it is partly about people delaying when they have children and partly linked to the factors that she mentioned, including housing. So a priority for us is attacking housing by making more housing available for young people, which is very difficult. The fertility rates are themselves a problem, but not one that is confined to the UK; I used to work a lot in Korea, where fertility rates are horrifically low.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that international students make an enormous contribution to our knowledge economy and ideally should be included in our net migration statistics only when they indicate an intention to immigrate post study via the graduate route or via application to the skilled worker route, and should otherwise be thought of as temporary residents or tourists—as Canada and the US treat them—with whom they share many characteristics?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The figures are broken down in some of the analysis that has been done by the ONS. Of course, the ONS is independent and impartial, which is an important strength. On students, it is important that the number of dependants coming into the UK should be limited, although we do understand that those who are going to stay in the UK to do PhDs and so on need to have dependants contributing to our country and our economy.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the uncomfortable truth is that our economy appears to be incapable of growing without onboarding some 300,000 migrant workers each year. Even then, we are talking about miserly growth and, worse still, zero GDP growth per capita. Does the Minister agree that, until we tackle our abysmal productivity rates, such population growth is here to stay?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that we must tackle our abysmal productivity rates. It is something I have focused on, I have to say, since long before I came to this House. There are things that we can do with skills. I look forward to the Budget on Wednesday and hope that the word “productivity” will feature in the speech by the Chancellor.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said a little while ago that net immigration figures were much too high. She went on to say that the Government were taking action. Yet today’s Times reports a surge in foreign candidates for teaching jobs that Britain cannot fill. Why are the Government not capable of training more UK teachers? This would suggest that the effort is not behind teacher training for UK residents.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I saw that piece as well and I was pleased to see teachers coming in specialisms such as physics, where it is very difficult to get people to come into teaching at the sort of salaries that are on offer. Of course, the Government have made a big investment in trying to get more people into teaching. Whenever people come to me for careers advice and say that one of their alternatives is to be a teacher, I say, “Go and be a teacher and don’t think about any other options”.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, at a time of increasing global division, the effective communication of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy is vital. In order to achieve our objectives, the nation must speak clearly with one voice. It is for His Majesty’s Government alone to decide the UK’s foreign policy.

I acknowledge that the Bill is being debated at a troubling time. Although some noble Lords may disagree with the Government on certain aspects of this legislation, I hope that everyone in this House will be sensitive to the broader issues with which the Bill deals. It will give effect to an important manifesto commitment. It is vital that public bodies are not allowed to pursue policies, through their investment and procurement decisions, in order to try to legitimise a UK foreign policy that differs from that of HMG.

Some public bodies have tried to declare boycotts and divestment policies that are inconsistent with the foreign policy set by the Government. Local councils have passed motions in support of boycotts. Local government pension schemes are frequently under pressure to divest certain securities. Universities, too, have been pressurised by groups that want to impose their own views about foreign policy.

The campaign that has placed the most pressure on our public bodies is the BDS movement. It deliberately asks public bodies to treat Israel differently from any other country, and its founders have been clear in their opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Not only is that at odds with the policy of this Government, which is to promote a two-state solution, but we have seen an increase in anti-Semitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement. These concerns pre-date the 7 October attacks, but since then the Community Security Trust has recorded the highest-ever number of anti-Semitic incidents, alongside increasing pressure for public bodies to engage in BDS activity.

The provisions in this landmark Bill prohibit public bodies from imposing their own boycotts or divestment campaigns against foreign countries or territories. It is clearly wrong that individuals who have roles of authority in a subordinate public body can act in such ways. It is also wrong that those public bodies can act in a way that, at home, jeopardises community cohesion while sowing confusion among our international allies about UK government policy.

It is particularly noticeable that boycotts and divestment campaigns disproportionately target Israel, especially in recent months in the wake of Hamas’s despicable terror attack and the resulting conflict. These boycotts contribute to the depressing rise of anti-Semitism across the UK, as reported last week by the Community Security Trust, which recorded its highest-ever annual total of anti-Jewish hate across the UK.

This Bill was unamended in the other place. That reflects the care taken in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that it adequately prohibits BDS campaigns in public bodies, applies to the correct public bodies within its scope and provides appropriate enforcement powers. Noble Lords may wish to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, and of course I am open to considering those.

I now turn to the Bill in greater detail. It will prohibit public bodies from implementing boycotts or divestment campaigns against foreign countries and territories that are inconsistent with the legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions set by HMG. The Bill will apply to public bodies UK-wide. It provides for an enforcement regime with the power to issue compliance notices and to investigate and fine public bodies in breach of the ban.

The main provisions are as follows. The Bill will ban public bodies from considering the country or territory of origin of a product or service, in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, when making a procurement or investment decision. It does not prevent public bodies taking such considerations into account where this is required by formal UK government legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions. To capture the rare and legitimate occasions when territorial considerations are relevant to a procurement or investment decision, the Bill provides for a number of exceptions to its provisions. For example, the Bill will not prevent public bodies taking into account territorial considerations for reasons such as national security, labour-related misconduct, and legitimate business and financial considerations. It has been drafted to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on investments or prevent fund managers being able to assess the political risk of investments.

The Bill will work in harmony with the Procurement Act and will support it in better tailoring the procurement framework to our country’s needs. This Bill will in no way hinder our ability, under that Act, to exclude suppliers where necessary, including where there is evidence that a supplier is involved in modern slavery practices. Public bodies covered by the Procurement Act can therefore be confident that they will be free to decide which suppliers are eligible to bid and which is the best bid to meet their requirements, taking into account all relevant factors. However, they must not base such decisions on territorial considerations in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.

The Bill has been drafted so as not to interfere with any individuals’ or bodies’ rights under existing human rights legislation, including the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are committed to protecting freedom of speech and are not restricting any person’s or private organisation’s right to free speech. This applies to all in their individual capacities as elected officials, and this distinction has been made clear in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. The Bill will apply only to decisions by a public body related to its investment and procurement functions. It will not interfere with any person’s or private organisation’s rights to express a view or to protest. Accordingly, I have signed a statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

On the type of public bodies that are covered by the Bill, they include the devolved authorities, local authorities, local government pension schemes, universities, government departments and agencies, publicly funded schools, and cultural institutions, such as museums and theatres, which receive significant public funding. The Bill will apply to public bodies across the country. It will cover bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including devolved bodies with wholly or mainly devolved functions, as well as those with wholly reserved functions. As foreign affairs is a reserved matter, we will not seek legislative consent from the devolved assemblies to apply the Bill’s provisions to devolved bodies.

Moving on to the countries and territories covered by the Bill’s provisions, I mentioned earlier that Israel is a frequent and disproportionate target of boycotts and divestment campaigns. To ensure that the Bill is effective at banning divisive behaviour, it will apply to all countries and territories, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and occupied Golan Heights.

Another provision I wish to highlight is one that recognises the need for flexibility when there are fast-moving changes in the global landscape. The Bill includes a power to exclude a certain country or territory from the Bill’s provisions via secondary legislation. In fact, we intend to use this power to maximise our impact on Putin’s capacity to fund his war by exempting Russia and Belarus from the Bill to allow public bodies to continue to stop procurement from Russia and Belarus. This means that public bodies will be able to consider how, in line with UK foreign policy, they can further cut ties with companies backed by or linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes while minimising the impact on taxpayers and the delivery of public services.

At the same time, we have seen examples of public bodies making declarations to boycott and divest as far as the law allows. These are harmful even where the law does not allow boycotts and divestments and therefore such declarations ought not to be made. There is concern that recent declarations of anti-Israel boycotts, even when not implemented in practice, have driven and contributed to rising anti-Semitism. For example, in 2019, Leicester city councillors voted to boycott produce originating from the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Similar resolutions were passed by Swansea city council in 2010 and Gwynedd Council in 2014. That is why the Bill will ban public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by the Bill, even where there is no intention to implement.

I stress that the Bill will apply only to public bodies carrying out public activity. Therefore, it will not prohibit individuals such as elected officials from speaking in favour of a boycott or divestment policy. I understand that some are concerned about how elected officials could differentiate between individuals’ statements that are caught or not caught by the prohibition. I should explain that councillors could place their authority in breach of the ban only if they were making a statement of intent to boycott on behalf of their authority. The Bill will not restrict representatives, including council leaders, from expressing their support for a boycott in a debate or on their personal social media. The Government are entirely committed to protecting free speech, and it is not our policy to restrict what individuals can say. Accordingly, I have signed a statement of compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights.

To ensure that the Bill is effective, we have provided for an enforcement regime that will apply to all public bodies captured by the Bill, UK-wide. The regime gives Ministers and designated regulators the power to issue compliance notices and to investigate and fine public bodies where there is evidence that they have breached the ban. This will be at minimal cost to taxpayers, and we will work closely with regulators to ensure that it does not place any unnecessary burdens on them. We will make secondary legislation setting out factors to be considered or not to be considered in determining the appropriate fine. Public bodies that do not follow the law will also be open to judicial review.

This legislation honours the promise we made to the electorate. It will ensure consistency in the UK’s foreign policy agenda, support public bodies to remain focused on their core duties, and prevent divisive campaigns that target particular sectors of our society to the detriment of our wider community spirit and cohesion. I look forward to working across the House to deliver this important legislation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to today’s debate in support of the Bill, including my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Verdirame. I hope to convince many more noble Lords to do the same during our Committee discussions. Valuable contributions have been made today from all sides of the House. I would like to address the main themes of what has been a hotly contested debate and some of the questions raised by noble Lords.

Anti-Semitism is often referred to as the world’s oldest hatred; unfortunately, it is still very much alive. Since the 7 October attacks, we have seen a surge in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded its highest-ever total of anti-Semitic incidents in 2023, and 66% of these incidents occurred after 7 October. Many British Jews are understandably scared. Some Jewish schools in London even temporarily closed their doors over security fears.

Now more than ever, the Government should be taking steps to stop behaviour that could legitimise or even drive anti-Semitism. This is what the Bill does. The BDS movement is pernicious and has no place in our public institutions. That is why the Bill has been widely supported by the Jewish community in the UK. It has been endorsed by the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The reasons for this were persuasively outlined by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, citing some telling examples from the UN, local government, supermarkets and universities. I am very grateful to him for coming to make the case against BDS, and doing it so clearly. Boycott and divestment campaigns undermine community cohesion and can confuse the Government’s foreign policy, so it is vital that we deal with this issue as we promised in the 2019 manifesto.

We have taken care to keep the scope of the Bill narrow, so that it applies only to the procurement and investment decisions of public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Legislation brought forward in other countries on this issue, such as in some states of the United States, has gone beyond this.

I have read the report on the Bill that was prepared by the Constitution Committee and referenced by the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and I thank the committee for its useful contribution to this debate. I will take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that it raised, and to tackle points that have been raised during this debate.

First, concerns were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman of Darlington and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and others, about Clause 4, which prohibits public authorities from making statements indicating that they intend to boycott or divest, or would if it were legal to do so. This provision is a vital addition to the Bill. Such statements can be just as divisive as boycotts that are implemented, and have been widely condemned by Jewish groups. As expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, it is vital that the prohibition also applies to statements indicating that a public authority would boycott if it were legal to do so. This is because, in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a resolution saying it would boycott produce from Israeli settlements in so far as legal consideration allowed. Community cohesion was, of course, at the heart of the party’s manifesto commitment, and that is essential to fulfilling it.

I explained in my opening remarks that that provision will not prevent elected officials, such as local councillors, expressing their support for boycotts or divestment campaigns. The distinction has been made clear in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, so it is not necessary to state that in the Bill. The Bill will restrict individuals from making these statements only when speaking on behalf of a public authority, which do not have human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The clause has been drafted narrowly and will not in any way prevent public authorities making statements on foreign policy that do not express the intent to boycott or divest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, asked what would happen if an academic expressed their support for a boycott at the same time as their university breached the ban, and how that would be investigated. An academic would be considered to be speaking on behalf of the university in the context of the Bill only if they had a role in the university’s decision- making process for public investment and procurement decisions, which I hope deals with her point.

The noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Boateng, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, among others, raised their concern that this Bill would have prohibited local authorities from boycotting South Africa in the 1980s, and mentioned their own activities at the time. However, the movement to boycott South Africa was successful because of a concerted international effort led by Governments across the world. Although public authorities played a role—

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

The Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, consistently opposed boycotts in every international forum and consistently opposed the role of local government, churches, trade unions and others in extolling the virtue of boycotts. She was totally opposed to boycotts. The Minister really must take care in these assertions, because what she said simply does not bear any examination at all.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was going to say that, although public authorities and individuals played a role, it was by acting in concert with the UK Government that we were able to pressure the South African Government—

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

The UK Government consistently opposed local authorities. It is simply not true to say that the GLC or any other local authority acted in concert with Margaret Thatcher’s Government. That is nonsense.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will move on. Obviously, I agree that the history of—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

On that point, if can help the Minister, I represented this country at the United Nations at the time and what the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, says is totally accurate.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will move on. I was just going to say that it was amazing that the change happened in South Africa. I remember visiting it in the 1990s, after the change.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry to intervene, but we cannot let that go. If that was in the Minister’s notes, they are absolutely wrong. I am afraid I think an apology is necessary.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I said what I said with due advice and knowledge. I take the points that have been made.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I am sorry to detain the House. Not only do I endorse everything that my noble friend Boateng said, but the American Government under President Reagan also opposed boycott action. It was only the Black Caucus in Congress forcing through the loan sanctions in the late 1980s that accelerated the decline of apartheid. Virtually every Government in Europe and right across the world, including white Commonwealth countries, opposed boycott action in every respect. If the Minister’s officials are feeding her this nonsense, she should not simply repeat it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I will certainly look into this further and perhaps we can come back to it on another occasion.

Perhaps me could move on, in the interests of time, to climate change. I would like to clarify that the Bill will ban only considerations that are country-specific. It will therefore not prevent public local authorities divesting from fossil fuels or other campaigns that are not country-specific.

The Bill will not prevent public authorities accounting for social value in their procurement decisions, the reform mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins— of course, we worked together on moving to most advantageous tenders; that is a change that has come about. For example, authorities might structure their procurement so as to give more weight to bids that create jobs or promote animal welfare. Moreover, the Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that relate to environmental misconduct, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, there was official-level engagement with the devolved Administrations on the Bill’s provisions before it was introduced to the other place through the common frameworks working groups process. Senior official engagement on the Bill dates back to April 2022. The Minister for this Bill in the other place, who I saw witnessing our proceedings earlier this evening, has also engaged with responsible Ministers in Scotland and Wales. We intend to engage with Ministers in Northern Ireland now that power has been restored.

The Government have never set out to legislate without consent. We formally sought consent from all the devolved legislatures. Where the legislative consent process is engaged, we always tend to legislate with the support of the devolved Administrations and the consent of the devolved Parliaments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, highlighted, boycotts and divestments against foreign countries or territories are a matter of foreign policy. This Bill relates to foreign affairs and international relations, which are reserved matters, but I am sure we will come back to this point in Committee.

I turn to the Bill’s enforcement powers. I start by clarifying that the Bill does not create any new criminal offences, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. They are not criminal offences. Moreover, these enforcement powers are not unprecedented: the regime is based on existing enforcement regimes, such as the powers given to the Office for Students in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Clause 7 is a necessary addition to the Bill to ensure that enforcement authorities have the necessary information to assess whether there has been a breach of the ban. It would not make sense to implement a ban with a toothless enforcement regime but, again, I am sure that we will discuss enforcement further in Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Willetts, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Johnson of Marylebone, questioned why the ban needs to apply to universities. This ban will ensure that any public authority, including universities in scope of the Bill performing public functions, can maintain their focus on their core purpose rather than taking partisan stances that undermine community cohesion.

It is not appropriate for those institutions to have a corporate view on a matter of foreign policy in the context of their public investment and procurement functions. That risks stifling the academic freedom of individual members of staff to take positions on foreign policy. However, I note the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Johnson, Lord Willetts, Lord Shipley, and others on the ONS reclassification of universities. I will come back to noble Lords on this issue in Committee, once I have consulted other Ministers.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, regarding public investment and private investment, a lot of our universities have very substantial endowments. Will the Minister clarify that these are well outside the Bill’s remit? When they take decisions on investment and procurement from their private investment funds, they are acting privately and not publicly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is my sense, but I will obviously check where we are. I would also make it clear that things such as conference centres and so on are obviously outside the remit. I will come back to the noble Lord on the exact definition, if I may, and we can perhaps discuss it in Committee in any event.

I will now address concerns that this Bill represents a change in the UK’s foreign policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and others, will be pleased to know that the Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that nothing in this Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. The Government continue to urge Israel to halt settlement expansion immediately.

I reassure the House that the Government’s assessment is that the Bill distinguishes between Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967. It is therefore compliant with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government believe very strongly in the importance of complying with international obligations under the UN Charter.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Could the Minister tell us how the Bill distinguishes this, because the clause applies to them all equally? Could she set that out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The instructions for the drafting were to ensure the distinction and compliance. The Bill sets these out individually and I understand that it is compliant. The Government believe very strongly in the importance of compliance.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

The Minister says it is her understanding that this applies. I think her understanding is inadequate on this issue because there is nothing in this Bill that makes a clear distinction between the Occupied Territories and Israel itself. Perhaps she could come back to the House, or write to us all, when she has clarified this and set out exactly where this distinction is made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I would be happy to do that and to discuss these clauses in Committee, in the usual way. The Bill does not break international law and will not compel any public authority—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

This is not just a matter of waiting for Committee; this is a matter of clearing up something very fundamental following questions that have been raised at Second Reading.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I made it clear that it is compliant. I will write a letter setting that out in the coming days.

As many noble Lords have said, there has been a rising problem of anti-Semitism since 7 October. I believe we now need this Bill all the more and that it is important to protect community cohesion.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his kind remarks and his helpful discussion on his concerns with the exception to the ban for considerations that a public body deems relevant to international law. This exception is necessary to ensure that public authorities are not forced to make a decision which could put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. Public authorities cannot have their own subjective views on what constitutes a breach of international law. They must reasonably consider the decision relevant to the UK’s obligations under international law.

I now turn to China, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the matter. The Procurement Act, which we worked on together, will further strengthen our approach to exclude suppliers where there is clear evidence of the involvement of forced labour or other modern slavery practices. This Bill will not prevent public bodies conducting due diligence and considering the location of suppliers when assessing modern slavery risk and will not prevent public bodies adhering to modern slavery guidelines. We will continue to keep our policy response under review. The Bill’s power to exempt a particular country or territory from its provisions will allow the scope of the Bill to evolve in line with the UK Government’s foreign policy.

Additionally, concerns have been raised around how the Bill will impact the ability of public authorities to protect against human rights abuses. It is the Government’s view that allowing for blanket exclusions of suppliers because they are based in a particular country, for an undisclosed period, is disproportionate and unfair on suppliers from those countries which operate fairly and ethically. However, I can assure Members of the House that the Bill will not prevent public authorities disregarding suppliers involved in human rights abuses on a non-country specific basis. Public bodies should not be pursuing country-specific campaigns.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain how that works? If a public authority decided that it would not trade with any supplier which banned trade unions or the right to strike, and, subsequently, a tender came in from China, could it or could it not, under the Bill, decide not to accept such a tender?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not entirely understand the question, but I am happy to research that and come back. The basic point is that public bodies should not be pursuing country-specific campaigns, as foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government alone—but obviously we need to understand the details in the supply chain.

Additionally, the Bill contains an exception to the ban for various considerations where the Government have assessed it appropriate for public authorities to make territorial considerations influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, including considerations relevant to labour market misconduct, which was a concern of the noble Lord.

Bodies that administer the Local Government Pension Scheme are captured by the definition of “public authorities” in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is therefore appropriate for that decision to be captured. For example, a UN special rapporteur wrote to the LGPS in November 2021 demanding divestment from a number of Israeli companies, and the demand cited its ability to play a “transformational role”. I think we can agree that the role of local authorities is to manage the assets to deliver benefits to members.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked whether the pension fund Nest and the PPF are in scope of the Bill. The only pension funds the Bill will apply to are those in the Local Government Pension Scheme, so they are not within scope.

There was a long conversation about the application of the Bill—which bodies it applies to. It will apply to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This definition has been in statute for 25 years and sets the scope for the application of fundamental legislation.

Indicative factors that were relevant to judges’ previous decisions on the issue include the body receiving a significant amount of public funding, the body carrying out acts in exercise of statutory powers and the body providing a public service. I encourage any institution that is unsure whether it is bound by Section 6 of the HRA to seek independent advice, but I have noted various questions on scope that we may come back to in Committee, because there were some useful contributions on that, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I clarify that the Bill’s Short Title provides a general indication of its subject matter, and it is clear that it applies only to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.

This legislation delivers an important manifesto commitment. It will ensure that the UK has a consistent foreign policy approach and speaks with one voice internationally. I have not had time to answer every point, but I have been listening carefully. I look forward to working with noble Lords throughout the passage of the Bill to deliver this important legislation and to continue to engage on the various knotty and important issues that have been raised today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule, Clauses 4 to 17, Title.

Motion agreed.

Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Northbrook on securing the Second Reading of the Bill and on the crispness of his opening remarks, which I will try to imitate. I know that he has a great and personal interest in this issue, as have some others, including the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although they have been very modest about it and there is no agreement on the Bill. I am also grateful to them and all fellow noble Lords for an engaging, crisp and thoughtful debate.

As noble Lords will know, the issue of peerage reform is a complex one, with complicated adjoining issues. The debates, Motions and various Private Members’ Bills on this issue advanced in both our Houses have proposed several scales of reform and different methods for achieving it. The Government are not unsympathetic to the principle that there should be more women in your Lordships’ House. However, this Bill, on the one hand, is not a Bill for equal primogeniture and, on the other, would affect many people and families outside this House who have no role in public life. The lack of address on the primogeniture issue was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Astor and others. Given the issues at play, the Government are far from convinced that now is the time, or that this is the way, to look at this matter. The Government have considered my noble friend’s proposal carefully, but they have reservations, and I am afraid that we will not support the Bill today.

It is important to be clear about the purpose of the Bill. As the Title suggests, it is about the succession to peerages, but it is above all about the preservation of certain peerages. Its main purpose is to ensure that titles do not die out and to revive titles which have already met this fate. As noble Lords are aware, the descent of hereditary titles depends on the provisions of the creation. Most hereditary peerages and baronetcies descend down the male line, under the principle of male primogeniture, which means that the peerage can only descend through that legitimate male line. Fewer than 90 peerages can descend through the female line.

Here are some interesting statistics: excluding royal peerages, there are 24 Dukes, 34 Marquesses, 191 Earls—with four Countesses in their own right—115 Viscounts and 426 Barons, including nine Baronesses. Approximately 660 of those appear on the Roll of the Peerage and 207 on the register of hereditary Peers. There are also 1,000 or so baronets. These arrangements have been in place for hundreds of years, and many families organise their lives on the expectation that they will continue. The Government are convinced that this Bill would require significant amendment. It is imperative to ensure that any legislation in this space is carefully considered and reflective of all those affected and the many views that exist on the reform of hereditary succession. This Bill is not the correct vehicle for that.

Let us turn briefly to the Bill. Clause 3 would lead to a significant increase in the number of claims to hereditary titles and in the number of hereditary title holders. The Government believe that in the region of around 200 peerages have the potential to fall within scope. As well as automatically reviving peerages that have become extinct on or after 6 February 1952, Clause 3 would, in certain circumstances, allow a petition to be made to the King requesting the revival of a peerage—as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned—which we as a Government have concerns about.

We have particular concerns with the retrospectivity of the clause, which was well explained by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Before a peerage can be revived, its provenance and the right of the individual in question to inherit must be proven before the peerage can be entered on the Roll of the Peerage. The Bill would therefore have considerable resource implications for the Crown Office and the College of Arms, which would inevitably take some years to work through, especially in cases where the descent of a title was in any way unclear or contested. My noble friend Lord Lucas spoke against the proposed revival of extinct titles as a matter of principle.

The proposed reform would affect not only Members of the House but the interests of other individual families. These are changes that should not be undertaken lightly without proper consideration of their effects or of any potential unfairness. That is particularly the case when many of those impacted will have no association with this House but will be directly affected by this Bill.

Turning to Clause 4, it should be noted that there are a number of hereditary peerages and baronetcies which carry estates and properties, either by virtue of the terms of the instrument creating the peerage or as a result of a trust arrangement which has been put in place to ensure that the peerage and property descend together. Clause 4(2) would appear to separate land and property rights from the title. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, mentioned strangeness, and I think the clause would create a strange system whereby property would continue to be inherited by the oldest male heir even if the title went to a female heir, possibly splitting titles and estates. It would be impossible to say how many titles or names would be affected by this provision, given that trust arrangements are often confidential matters.

Finally, I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 4(1). This provision would establish that the Bill would not affect the succession to the Crown, or any peerages or baronetcies held by His Majesty the King. However, the Bill would potentially impact on the descent of titles held by other members of the Royal Family. Very careful consideration ought to be given to how any reform might affect these titles.

In conclusion, the Government continue to listen to the concerns of interested parties to understand the consequences of changes to hereditary titles. However, the reality is that, at this time, reform is not an immediate priority, particularly on an issue more relevant to private interests than to the general public, as my noble friend Lady Noakes argued persuasively.

By making a single, rather sweeping change to the descent of all hereditary peerages and baronetcies, the Bill would potentially affect not just Members of this House but a considerable number of families in different ways, according to their own individual circumstances. It would also require significant work and amendment to avoid major unintended consequences. Therefore, I am afraid that, while the Government are grateful for the debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, we do not support the Bill today. It is a halfway house that creates more problems than it solves.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

May I remind the Minister of the comment made by the Cabinet Office Minister in the House of Commons at the end of a debate on a parallel Bill that was being introduced by a Member of Parliament, Mrs Baldwin? He said that he “appreciated the position” from which she was coming. Is the Minister denying that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

This is, of course, a different Bill; today we have been addressing another Bill and we have made it clear that it is not fit for purpose. I am sure we will debate other Bills in this House in the fullness of time, and I look forward to doing that.

Devolved Authorities: Expenditure outwith Competences

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they expect to receive a report from the Cabinet Secretary on the arrangements for ensuring expenditure by the devolved authorities is spent in accordance with their competences and, if so, when.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

The Government agree with the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the principle of a single Civil Service across England, Scotland and Wales should be maintained. The Government are in the process of considering what further guidance may be required for civil servants working in the devolved Administrations. I anticipate that this process will be completed in the coming months.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

But my Lords, it is now more than six months since Simon Case gave that commitment to the Constitution Committee. We have had fine words from the Dispatch Box—we have them again today—yet the Scottish Government have actually intensified their spending on reserved areas, with a campaign for independence, overseas embassies and a whole range of other things, as if they are deliberately defying the UK Government. When will the Government at last take their courage in their hands and take some action on the ground to back up their fine words?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I know there are strong feelings about this, and people in Scotland want both their Governments to concentrate on the issues that matter most to them: growing the economy, gripping inflation and improving public services. On the point about timing, as I said, the Government only recently, on 24 January, responded to the committee’s inquiry, reiterating the work that is under way. I am delighted that the Cabinet Secretary is back; these issues are being given active consideration.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as Scotland’s educational standards decline, its NHS faces acute challenges—not least the recruitment of consultants—and ferries languish in a Scottish government shipyard, overpriced, overdue and much needed by the operators, the response of the Scottish Government, not only to spend money on completely illegitimate and incompetent objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, but to make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, is, in the face of these challenges, as incomprehensible as it is regrettable?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with much of my noble friend’s sentiment, and that the Civil Service should not carry out political work. It has its own Civil Service Code, which replicates the Civil Service Code that is operated across the UK, and it should pursue the priority items that people care about.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, now that devolution has been restored to Northern Ireland and there have been considerable discussions around funding issues—I acknowledge the funding that has already been promised by the Prime Minister—will the Minister indicate what further discussions are taking place about a new funding model for the Northern Ireland Executive to underpin the need for improved infrastructure to deal with health waiting lists and education priorities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think it is right for me to say that we welcome the return of the Executive and of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister is attending Stormont today. A substantial budget has been made available as part of that settlement, and I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that, both from the new Executive and of course from our Northern Ireland Ministers.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that if Ministers in a devolved Administration wish to embark on a course of action or incur expenditure that may well be beyond devolved competence, one might reasonably expect civil servants to seek a written ministerial direction? What information does she have about the number of written ministerial directions sought from Scottish Ministers in the last five years, and what conclusions does she draw from either their frequency or their infrequency?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting and important point. I understand that any directions of that kind from a Minister would have to be published, and I am not aware of any such directions having been made in relation to the issues that the noble and learned Lord describes. The Government recognise the strength of the arguments and, as I said, are in the process of considering how guidance might support civil servants working in the devolved Administrations on areas that might relate to reserved matters.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, this request to put competence at the heart of decision-making is a dangerous, underhand way of trying to prevent policies being made on impetus and conjecture, which could really change government. For example, it would have prevented a recent decision by the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice to describe an investigation into discrimination in the Prison Service, in which none of the complainants was interviewed and no documentation was looked at, as a very thorough, competent investigation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure what sort of competence the noble Lord is talking about. Devolved competence is, of course, clearly set out in various bits of legislation. I note what he says about the investigation, which I was not aware of.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that in Wales the problem is the reverse? The Government sought to indulge in a power grab, particularly following Brexit, of competences that were already devolved, and in addition threatened to spend on road projects, for example, that the Welsh Government had specifically rejected. This works both ways.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, but he may be pleased to hear that I am going to Wales to give evidence on the new border arrangements this week.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the area in which we seem to have come unstuck, particularly over what is devolved and what are reserved powers, is the changing scene of foreign policy. Does my noble friend agree that there might be a case for revisiting the devolution legislation, in a completely changed world, to understand, for instance, the role of the various Scottish offices in other capitals? Are they concerned with trade or are they involved in foreign policy? Do major visiting officials from other countries visit Scotland as a separate entity, with separate foreign policy considerations? This is a very muddled and confused area, and it is getting more so. Does she agree that we need to clear up some of these contradictions?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. This is a live issue, because there was the example of a meeting between the Scottish First Minister and Turkish President Erdoğan with no FCDO official present. I regret that and think it contravenes the protocols, which are designed to ensure that a Minister within the UK lands is properly informed and is making the right points on such a sensitive area—and also reports back, so that we have a joined-up understanding of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are a UK competence.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the problems that the Scottish Government wish to be independent, pretend they are independent and then complain when they find that things they are trying to do do not conform to the devolution settlement, and that they are using UK Government premises overseas to promote their campaign for independence. Does this not have to be brought to a halt, and the division between what is devolved, what is reserved and what is shared clearly set out and enforced?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that we need to consider the presence of Scottish Government offices in UK Government posts, but there is a case for having individual officials knowledgeable about Scotland engaged on issues such as fishing, where there is an important Scottish interest. I have seen that working well, so there is a balance here—but I agree with the general direction of the noble Lord’s comment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, we very much welcome the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. But in the letter to the Prime Minister ahead of their meeting today, Northern Ireland Ministers wrote that they want

“immediate and durable changes to our funding arrangements”.

How do the Government interpret that, and what is their response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am sure we will get feedback on these very important discussions, and I do not want to be drawn in to making a comment today, despite the persuasion and charm of the noble Baroness.

Civil Servants: Working from Home

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to review the effect on public services of civil servants working from home.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, there are clear benefits from face-to-face, workplace-based collaborative working. That is why departments have issued new guidance that most civil servants should spend at least 60% of their working time in the office and our senior civil servants have been told that they need to set an example as leaders.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer but are we not a trading nation? If we are, should we not support our industry, commerce and individual entrepreneurs? How can they possibly do what we want them to do when they—let alone the poor ordinary person who is equally affected—cannot get the support they need from His Majesty’s departments of state, whether that amounts to telephone calls unanswered, emails not returned, or meetings rescheduled? Against that background, we now know from a report published by the National Audit Office that this is costing over £5 billion a year on procurement, and on theft and fraud, again, over £5 billion a year. Will my noble friend, as a senior Minister and with her teams, meet the Civil Service to ensure that we get good, firm leadership that is aspirational and involves civil servants at all stages, and recognise that working from home is not viable?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with a lot of what my noble friend says. He and I both have a background in retail and leadership is very important. That is one reason why the new Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen—well known to many of your Lordships—set out in a speech how the Civil Service should lead in providing public services. That included spending a minimum 60% of working time in the office, with leaders encouraging that because of the benefits it brings to the workforce.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an academic who has worked from home for at least two days of the working week throughout my career. Email and mobile phones have made it a great deal easier to do so and still be efficient. The introduction of hot-desking in Whitehall and the squeeze on places for staff to work mean that it is difficult for everyone to have a desk if they come in every day. Is that a constraint on the Civil Service bringing people back in to work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Clearly, the Civil Service is changing to have a very good approach, which is to modernise the property that civil servants are working in. We are doing more outside London, as the noble Lord will know. That is allowing a more modern approach in the office, with more hot-desking. Some of the offices are full some of the time, but it is important that we use our property properly in the interests of value for money, while modernising it so that it is a good workplace. One of the things young people say is that they want to come to a nice place to work; my department, the Cabinet Office, is certainly a very nice place to work.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The Minister has regularly referred to time in the office and work in offices. I am especially concerned about those people employed by the Government who do not work in offices. They work to clean buildings or provide refreshment services and the like. What proportion of staff have the option of deciding which days of the week they come in and which days they do not? Is there is a correlation—there must be a rough one, but maybe she can put me wrong—so that it is basically the lower-paid workers who do not have the option of working from home? Perhaps they should be compensated in some other way.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Each department is its own employer, as the noble Lord will know, so the arrangements vary. He is right that it is different not only for the people who clean the offices but for prison officers and immigration officers. There are different demands on their time. Noble Lords should look at, in addition to our policy on working from home, our policy on flexibility, which has been enhanced by recent legislation. The Civil Service has used flexible working as a tool in attracting, recruiting and retaining talent. That would include some of the operatives whom he is talking about. In a 24/7 economy, that flexible working can be very valuable but it does not necessarily mean working from home, which is the subject of today’s Question.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, mentioned economic diversity, but what assessment have the Government made of the impact of this new ruling on other types of diversity in the workforce? I think particularly of those with significant disabilities. Working from home has enabled them to imagine careers they might not otherwise have had. Has this been taken into account in this new ruling?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It has, and the noble Baroness is right to mention attracting disabled persons into the workforce, which I have always thought important. We make some limited use of home-working contracts for certain roles. We promote adjustments for people with disabilities. On the Procurement Act, which I recently took through this House, the lead official had a very substantial disability; he is blind. That can go side by side with ensuring that, much of the time, those who are office-based are in the office and working with other colleagues in the Civil Service.

[Baroness Wyld (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend mentioned younger civil servants. Does she agree that, whether it is in the Civil Service or the private sector, the way younger workers learn and prosper is by observing their senior colleagues and having the opportunity to share ideas and thinking? Is there not an onus on senior civil servants to make the case more powerfully for working in the office?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I completely agree with my noble friend and that is part of our approach. I noticed in the press recently that the president of Adecco, an international recruitment company, said that working from home can hit creativity and empathy and was part of the problem we have with soft skills. I am very keen that we should have balance, but people should come into the office and get the sort of mentorship my noble friend has mentioned.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is certainly true that the Government ought to think much harder about their approach to the Civil Service. The overuse of external consultants, for example, is expensive and gradually undermining in-house expertise. The Government awarded £2.8 billion of consulting contracts in 2022 alone. Does the Minister agree that the Government should work hard to retain expertise within the service? Will she commit the Government to cutting back on their habitual overreliance on consultants?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see an overreliance on consultants. While I have been a Minister—only just over one year—we have moved to replace consultants with full-time civil servants in areas such as digital, because they represent better value for money. We probably have a certain amount of alignment on that. Clearly, we need to use outside consultants for some things, not least bringing in skills on things such as AI where we do not have the Civil Service skills we need. There has to be a balance; consultants can be valuable. Where I am with the noble Baroness is that there needs to be proper value for money and proper competition and we should not overdo it.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests. One thing that has never been properly explained is how people working from home with access to data on their laptops et cetera protect that data when it includes private information. I hear now that the police service is working from home, which I find bizarre. Of course the police are trying to support victims, but how can you be walking around a supermarket or at home with all this data, which other people can see? How do you stop that happening? This includes banks and may include the Civil Service. It is a very important issue, which I do not hear being discussed much.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising this question. Of course, he helps the Cabinet Office a lot through his role as a non-executive director. On security, obviously we had a big move because of Covid, which was favourable in terms of people having more kit at home, allowing them to pick things up. That has been established in a secure way. There are protocols for how you must use office kit; you cannot forward or print things. We are trialling work on devices that allow you to have parliamentary or government access on the same device, to make sure that security is protected. A lot of effort and expense is going into trying to keep us secure, but we need to do more because security is a big challenge.

Homelessness: Veterans

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increasing levels of homelessness among former armed forces personnel; and what steps they are taking to tackle homelessness among veterans.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

The Government doubt that the statistics available prove that there is an increasing level of homelessness among veterans. However, any homelessness among veterans needs to be tackled, which is why we have established a number of policies to achieve this important objective. We are committed to ensuring that no veteran is rough sleeping due to a lack of provision.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we surely all agree, across your Lordships’ House, that the very least we owe those who have served this country in our Armed Forces is that at the end of their service they should have either affordable supported housing with wraparound support or a General Needs home. Sadly, because of the national housing crisis, that is no longer the case. Last year, in spite of the pledges made under Operation Fortitude, there was an increase in homelessness among Armed Forces veterans of 14%, with 2,110 households affected, up from 1,850 the previous year. What steps are the Government taking to join up the work done by the Ministry of Defence, DLUHC and local government to ensure that no one who has served our country ends up sleeping on the streets?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I should say first that the level of veteran homelessness remains very low: less than 1% of households are owed a homeless duty. I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said about the importance of looking after our veterans. The increase can mainly be attributed to improved recording at local authority level. Local authorities now report on all support needs and relevant life experiences, rather than current support needs only. She rightly asks what we are doing. We have a large package of measures. There is Operation Fortitude, a hotline to support veterans into housing—the first of its kind—which has housed over 477 veterans. We have a dedicated £8 million fund, establishing 900 units of veteran supported housing. There is a whole range of help, including online help by the Veterans UK helpline, which helps to join up what we are doing. These different packages were championed by Minister Mercer, but co-ordinated very much with DLUHC and the MoD.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, everyone regrets anyone being homeless, especially veterans. As a veteran myself, I can say that. When I was the Minister responsible for veterans in the Ministry of Defence, which was immediately after the Labour Government left office, there was a lot of talk about veteran homelessness then. I went to see Veterans Aid, an excellent organisation that operates out of London. The man in charge of it, an ex-RAF wing commander, said, “Not everyone who says they’re a veteran actually is one, but they get better treatment if they are”. Does my noble friend agree that, as she has so rightly said, not everyone who says they are a veteran is one, but they get better benefits if they are?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The way I look at it, we need to help veterans. We have the veterans covenant, to say that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, are treated fairly. It was right that we changed the law in 2012 so that veterans with urgent housing needs are always given high priority for social housing. Of course, local authorities have to make sure that people who say they are veterans are veterans, but we must move forward and not be deterred by the odd difficultly. It is great that so few veterans are homeless; we should celebrate that.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, it is right we ensure that veterans are not homeless. One thing that it is important to remember is that the vast majority of veterans transition into civilian life without difficulty. However, for those who come from certain backgrounds, there must be opportunities, all the way through their serving life to talk about transitioning to civilian life and to think about future accommodation. A recent report funded by the Forces in Mind Trust put forward proposals for a road map to end veteran homelessness. Has the Minister had a chance to look at the report? Are the Government thinking about ensuring the opportunity for service personnel, while they are serving, to think about housing post-service?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have not seen the report but I would be very interested to look at it, and I thank the noble Baroness. In my former life as a private-sector employer in the retail industry, we had many veterans working for us. As their term of duty comes to an end, service personnel must look forward and think about opportunities. The discipline that they learn in the Army, and so many skills, can bring great things to the workforce.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, homelessness among veterans is not an isolated issue; very often it is connected with other problems, such as mental health challenges. These are challenges that often present years after veterans have left service. What action are the Government taking to ensure that these various aspects of the problem are being dealt with in a holistic way and not just in stovepipes?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I certainly agree. We try to be as holistic as possible in the help we provide. On mental health in particular, we invest £17 million a year in an amazing scheme called Op Courage. We have had 30,000 referrals, which shows the scale of the issue, and we are working now with NHS England on a public awareness campaign to promote Op Courage and what we can do in places such as GP surgeries and trusts in the way that the noble and gallant Lord has suggested.

[Baroness Lampard (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lampard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of GambleAware. Veterans are 10 times more likely than non-veterans to experience gambling harms, and to gamble as a way of coping with distress. The financial consequences of gambling harms are more than likely to contribute to homelessness among veterans. Third sector organisations such as Beacon Counselling, which was commissioned by GambleAware as part of the National Gambling Support Network, do brilliant work to reduce the impact of the heightened risk to the Armed Forces community. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to address the need to protect veterans from experiencing gambling harms and, to that end, how they intend to work in partnership with charities doing vital work in this area?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Veterans can access a range of support, including via the 24/7 Veterans’ Gateway, which deals with gambling, as well as housing and so on. There is also, of course, a national gambling helpline giving advice. There is dedicated support through Op Courage for mental health, which is often linked to gambling. The other things that I have mentioned can all help with this difficult issue, which obviously goes much wider than veterans.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the data that supports the conclusion that homelessness among veterans is increasing is uniquely English data. The Scottish data, which was most recently published in August 2023 and relates to the period between 2008 and 2022, shows that the number of veterans assessed as homeless or, importantly, at risk of homelessness has halved from 1,335 to 640. Would it not, on this occasion, be an idea to find out what Scottish councils, NGOs and the Scottish Government are doing to have achieved this?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am always glad to hear of good practice, wherever it is, but, as I tried to explain at the beginning, we have changed the way that we are counting veteran homelessness in local authorities. That does not mean that we should not do more or not learn from the devolveds when they do things better. A result that halves numbers is very good. However, as I said, there are almost no veterans rough sleeping now, due to the variety of provision that this Government have provided and the underpinning of the priority that homeless veterans get for social housing, which I think everybody supports.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I sometimes worry that Questions such as this convey a wider impression that military service somehow leads to long-term social disadvantage. That is just not the case. A glance at the figures on the national census from England and Wales shows that, if you have not done military service, you have a 20% chance of reaching the age of 65 and only a 5.1% chance of passing the age of 80. By comparison, a military veteran has a 53% chance of reaching 65 and a 31.8% chance of passing 80—a remarkable statistic, even by the standards of this House. Does the Minister therefore not agree that, at a time of grave recruiting challenges, such irresistible evidence of the life benefits of military service should be celebrated and more widely reported?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can agree that military service leads to many advantages, not only full-time military service but working in the reserves. We should encourage young people to look at this option.