US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to mitigate the impact of US steel and aluminium tariffs on the UK manufacturing sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that the US has today imposed global tariffs on steel and aluminium. The UK will always be a champion of free and open trade, which is essential in delivering our Plan for Change. We are resolute in our support for the UK steel industry. This Government are working with affected companies today, and we back the industry’s application to the Trade Remedies Authority to investigate what further steps might be necessary to protect UK producers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I am pleased to hear about the steps she is taking. To move on slightly, I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister acknowledged, during Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Brexit benefit of seeking a trade agreement with the United States to avoid tariffs. However, while the UK looks to negotiate with Washington, the EU has already retaliated against US tariffs, so the Government must now recognise that resetting relations with the EU at this moment risks dragging the UK into an escalating transatlantic trade war. Last month, a close ally of Donald Trump, Stephen Moore, made it clear that Britain will have to choose between its special relationship with the US and closer ties to the EU. The time for vague statements and talk of all options being open is surely over; we need clarity. Now that the US and the EU are openly in a trade war, do the Government not see the urgency of making their position clear? What will the UK prioritise—the special relationship or Brussels?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, when it comes to the national interest, he rejects having to make any false choice between allies. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority will be the growth of the UK economy and free and open trade with our most economically important partners. We will only ever sign trade agreements which align with the UK’s national interests.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, speaking to the last Question, noted that the Trump Administration had been completely outrageous to Canada. By extension, it must therefore have been completely outrageous to the European Union, so it is interesting to hear the opposite being argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to work with our allies? The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said that Canada is our closest ally. The Prime Minister has said that we need to reset our relationship with the European Union. Why, then, have we taken a different approach to those two closest trading allies?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a time for a cool-headed approach on the issue of trade tariffs. The UK and the US have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. The tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives being proposed by the Trump Administration are global; they are not targeted at the UK. In the meantime, we have been having regular, detailed conversations with the US Administration and have repeatedly and emphatically made the case for the UK to be exempt from proposed tariffs—most recently with the Secretary of State speaking to US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Sunday and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Tuesday. We have made that point over and over again. This is a time for a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs, and we will take every action we need to in order to defend the UK’s national interest.

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Opposition’s sudden interest in the fortunes of the British steel industry—a sector which was neglected over the past 15 years and has suffered enormously as a result. This Government launched a consultation on a steel strategy earlier this year. Could my noble friend update the House on the status of that consultation? How soon does she envisage the strategy being brought forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. The steel strategy consultation remains open until 30 March, at which point we will analyse responses received. The consultation is a key step forward in developing the steel strategy, ensuring it best promotes long-term, sustainable growth that will provide benefits to communities across the UK. It will provide us with a clear evidence base on the needs of the steel sector and its customers by leveraging a wide range of views and expertise and will bring those views to the heart of steel-making. We are committed to bringing forward the steel strategy in the spring, and we will learn from the lessons of that strategy.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the reckless and ill-thought-out measures being taken by President Trump will only damage the US economy itself—they will not prevent imports but will harm immensely the steel-using industries that are the main market for the US steel industry? It is an extremely short-sighted measure by President Trump. His having taken that measure is no reason for us to follow in such a short-sighted policy. We have the much more important objective of trying to negotiate better trade terms with the United States. These are general tariffs, not ones against the UK in particular, and the Government are quite right not to react by imposing tariffs ourselves.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I very much thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Let us be clear that industry here does not want to see a trade war with both sides escalating the situation. Standing up for industry means finding a solution, and we are working on that solution. The UK and the US have a strong economic relationship which is fair, balanced and reciprocal. We have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, supporting more than 2.5 million jobs across both countries. It is important that we maintain and build on those relationships. As I said before, cool heads are aware of and monitoring very carefully what is going on, but we do not want to do anything reciprocal at this stage.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on how she sees the development of steel in this country? I am pleased that the Opposition are now interested in that. I represented a community that lost what I think was at the time the most cost-effective steel-making plant in the country; I then had to represent the community that was devastated following that, under Mrs Thatcher’s Government, so I am really pleased that they are now interested in putting manufacturing at the heart of this country. In the north-east, we have been developing some very good greening of the industry. Can the Minister reassure us that the plans that the Government have for growth will involve re-energising that industry so that we get the new houses and new infrastructure that we need in this country and rebuild a steel-making industry here?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I assure my noble friend that we are determined to support and invest in the steel sector. We already have plans and are taking steps to do that. We see a bright future for steel in the UK, and our plan for steel, which will be published in the spring, will establish a long-term vision for the industry, promoting long-term growth and securing jobs for the future in all parts of the country. The point that my noble friend makes is absolutely right about that. This is about ensuring jobs, protecting the industry for the future and making sure that we can go forward on a competitive basis in the global trade on this issue.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think that His Majesty’s Government are quite right not to rush into retaliatory measures, but will the Minister say whether they are giving any thought to what will happen when the EU retaliates? What happens to Northern Ireland, which has been left within the EU for these kinds of matters? That is something that they need to be looking at urgently.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and internal market. We will continue to monitor closely the impact on Northern Ireland of any tariffs. While the framework means that tariffs would apply on US goods moved into Northern Ireland for the limited subset of US goods in line with its protection of the UK and EU markets, there is a duty reimbursement scheme in place where those goods do not enter the EU. The duty reimbursement scheme enables traders to reclaim or remit applicable duties in full without any limit on total claims. Businesses moving goods into Northern Ireland should contact HMRC for more information about these schemes.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that tariffs harm consumers and encourage industrial inefficiency? Does she agree that the British economy was at its most successful when it was pursuing a policy of unilateral free trade in the 19th century?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about our commitment to free trade. The Prime Minister has made our position absolutely clear on this matter. I am sure there are lessons from history that we can learn on all of this. We will continue to promote our policy of free trade and encourage new agreements wherever it is in our interest.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is very little prospect of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States because of its stance on agricultural products, which we could not possibly accept? However, there is a real possibility of an agreement on high technology, and that is what we should aim for.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that we are continuing to discuss with the US the possibility of a trade deal. In the economic and tech sectors, there is the possibility of agreements on the basis of mutual interest. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope to update the House on them in due course.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, while I very much welcome the action and words that the Prime Minister is using to defend the United Kingdom in this respect, does the Minister share my concern that, if the United Kingdom is to be exempt from any tariff war with the United States but the EU is not, the EU will seek some kind of revenge on the United Kingdom? What will the Government’s reaction be if that is the case?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, that is very much a hypothetical question. As I said earlier, we have very good relations with both our key partners, the US and the EU, and we will continue to aim to maintain those relationships. We have seen no sign that the EU will take any action against us, and we will continue to pursue good, friendly and trade-based relationships with the EU.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the steel that the US imports from us is specialist steel. It is interesting that, for the new ballistic missile submarines—both our own and the American ones—a common missile compartment is being designed and built by the UK. It will contain specialist steel, for which the US will pay more money. The Government are absolutely right not to take any action at this stage, because people will look again at this and there will be sensible negotiations.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. As I said, we very much support the strengthening of our steel industry in this country. It is very important to us, and we are taking a number of measures to invest in and build that sector, including the specialist sectors he referred to.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government give us an assurance that they will be extremely wary as they enter into, or continue with, trade talks with the United States? It has always sought very exploitative trade agreements to take advantage of both our National Health Service and our agriculture. The Conservatives negotiated a very weak trade treaty with Australia, which has done only damage. In these negotiations, will this Government be careful that they do not follow in the previous Conservative Government’s footsteps?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will act only in the UK’s interest in any discussions we have with the US. The National Health Service is not on the agenda for those discussions.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in our negotiations with the United States, the Minister should be very cautious on relying on expressions of good will from President Trump—it seems that they are not to be relied upon.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The US is a very strong friend and partner of this country, and we will continue to aim to maintain very good relations. We will of course take a hard-headed approach; we will not simply do deals on the expression of good will. These negotiations will be hard-headed, and they will take some time.

Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to bring these regulations, which were laid before the House on 2 January, forward under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which originated as a Private Member’s Bill during the previous Parliament. I pay tribute to Stuart McDonald—the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, for successfully steering that Private Member’s Bill through the various stages in both Houses to secure Royal Assent in 2023. The Act establishes new statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave and neonatal care pay for employed parents if their child starts to receive neonatal care within 28 days after birth and goes on to spend seven or more continuous days in care. These regulations are another step towards the implementation of neonatal care leave and pay in April this year, and they are the first to be brought before the Committee under the powers of the Act.

Currently, there is no statutory entitlement for parents of children who require neonatal care. Until now, parents in this difficult situation have had to rely on using other existing rights, such as maternity leave or annual leave, in order to be there to care for their baby and to support their partner. This approach has caused additional stress for parents. Some mothers have reported that they had to leave work because they were not ready to return at the end of their maternity leave. Because paternity leave is limited to two weeks, some fathers and partners have to rely on statutory unpaid parental leave or the compassion of their employers in order to take time off work.

Around 40,000 babies spend over one week in neonatal care each year. Once neonatal care leave and pay comes into force in April 2025, we estimate that around 60,000 parents will be eligible and that around 34,000 parents will take up paid neonatal care leave each year.

What do the SIs do? Neonatal care leave will enable eligible parents to take a minimum of one week and a maximum of 12 weeks of leave, in line with the number of weeks for which their baby receives neonatal care, on top of their other parental leave entitlements. Neonatal care leave will be a day 1 right for employees.

Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to employees who also meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. Eligible employees must have worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks ending with the relevant week and must earn, on average, at least £125 per week before tax. If eligible, the parent will be able to claim a flat rate of £187.18 per week in the 2025-26 financial year, or 90% of their average earnings, whichever amount is lower.

Employers will administer the statutory payment on behalf of the Government. Small employers will be able to recover 103% of their statutory payment from the Exchequer, while larger employers can recover 92% of payments, and will therefore incur wage-like costs equivalent to 8% of the statutory payments they make. A similar arrangement applies for all other existing statutory parental payments.

Together, these regulations will provide protection and support for parents at an incredibly challenging time. These entitlements provide a floor, and employers can and should go further if they are able to.

We have consulted extensively with stakeholders, including charities and business representative organisations, to ensure that these regulations balance the needs of parents and businesses. These groups agreed that the proposed reforms would provide substantial benefits to businesses, including retaining the skills and knowledge of their current employees.

I will now explain a few points of detail in the regulations. These have been developed through consultation, including with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS professionals.

We have designed a definition for neonatal care that encapsulates the different ways in which babies receive it, going beyond the walls of hospitals and including outreach care. This could include care that takes place within the family home, provided it meets the relevant criteria.

We have included outreach care in the eligibility criteria to capture the many ways in which babies receive care, and also to prevent a postcode lottery, where parents of children who receive the same clinical treatment may qualify in one area, as they receive treatment in hospital, but not in another, as they receive treatment at home through an outreach care programme.

To ensure that as many parents as possible are eligible, the definition of “parent” in the regulations encompasses adoptive parents, foster-to-adopt parents and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements. Those who meet this definition would also be required to have responsibility for the upbringing of the child and be caring for the child at the time of taking their leave and pay.

Having a baby in neonatal care is a difficult experience for any parent, whether the baby is admitted for one day or for many months. However, this entitlement will focus on parents of babies who experience prolonged stays in neonatal care, as they will be in most need of additional support. The qualifying period of neonatal care, as set out in the Act, will be a minimum of seven continuous days beginning on the day after the one on which the care starts. Starting the clock at 00.01 am—one minute past midnight—of the day after the child is admitted creates a consistent approach that does not vary from baby to baby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support across the Committee for these regulations. Again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, who rightly paid tribute to the parents and campaigners; I absolutely echo that point. Without that pressure, which all Governments have received, these measures simply would not have come forward. We are very grateful for the campaigners and the parents behind all of this. The noble Baroness also mentioned cross-party working. Private Members’ Bills are often a good illustration of that; I know this from the ones I have been involved in.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, asked about the people who might be excluded. That is a good question and goes some way to answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We are just setting a minimum standard here, of course. This is a minimum standard, but we encourage employers to go above and beyond it. Many do so already and recognise the benefits that this brings to their businesses. We will keep this whole issue under review; the charities and campaigners will require that of us, I think, going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We will want to see how the rollout goes but this is a good start. As with many regulations, we want to embed this measure before we do any further evaluation of it.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about making sure that we have a smooth implementation so that everybody knows what is going on. My officials are working with HMRC to develop and publish guidance on GOV.UK, which will explain the requirements of the legislation. In developing this guidance, we are undertaking user testing to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Ahead of implementation, my officials have been engaging with stakeholders—including employer groups, payroll providers, IT software developers and ACAS charities—and ensuring that we have posters in neonatal wards to advertise the benefits; I hope that that will make sure that the word spreads as widely as it possibly can.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for talking about some of the other measures and family-friendly policies that the previous Government introduced. I was pleased to hear about those; I hope that it bodes well for the debates that we are going to have on the Employment Rights Bill when we come to it in due course.

In the meantime, the provisions outlined in these SIs will provide for new parents with babies in neonatal care the ability to benefit from additional time off as a day 1 right. We should not lose sight of how important that is. Currently, many working families across the UK are having to return to work while their babies are sick and receiving care. As I said before, some mothers are also having to leave work because they are simply not ready to return to work. These measures aim to address some of the difficulties that thousands of parents face when their babies are in neonatal care or afterwards. They are a huge step forward.

We hope that the change in the law will also send a signal of encouragement to employers about the significance of recognising the struggles that parents go through when their very young child is unwell and of the need to provide them with appropriate support in all ways—not just with leave and pay but in other forms of support as well. Of course, I acknowledge that many employers are already providing that support to parents, but there is more that they can do; we all have an education role to play in all of that, I think.

In the meantime, I again thank noble Lords for all their comments.

Motion agreed.

Tariffs: Canada and Mexico

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what communications they have had with the governments of Canada, Mexico and other countries about the decision of the President of the United States to impose tariffs on certain of their exports.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have noted President Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Canada and Mexico and the subsequent 30-day suspension agreement. That is a matter for the US Administration, and it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships. We respect other countries’ dialogue with the US and we will not intervene. However, the UK Government are prepared to take action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and consumers. We will continue to monitor developments across the Atlantic.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome the fact that, in his talks with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister managed to obtain at least a grudging hint that the UK might be exempt from proposed tariffs. Will she not agree, if there is a fully fledged trade war that affects our trading partners, that it will have an impact on the world economy and on our economy and growth rate, and make it more difficult to do what we want to do on defence spending? Secondly, if, as our newly appointed ambassador to the United States has said, there is a prospect of a UK-US technology deal, is it not extremely important that we take advantage of the extra flexibility that we have outside the EU to have a regulatory regime that is not hostile to the industries of the future but actually sees them as an opportunity for innovation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord raised several questions there. On the question of the UK and US, we have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. As noble Lords know, the Prime Minister and President Trump discussed that on 27 February, when they agreed that we would deepen our relationship and have tasked teams to work together on a trade deal focused on tech. This is absolutely fundamental to us; the Prime Minister has been clear that he will not make any false choices between our allies—it is about our national interests. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Prime Minister has said that we are going further and we will work on an economic deal with advanced technology at its core—but these are early days to comment any further on this. Obviously, we will set out more details as discussions evolve.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister’s first reply, which, as I understood it, was that while of course we will confer with colleagues and allies across the world, we will not intervene—it is a matter for them to deal with the United States. I also very much commend the noble Lord’s second comment when he recommended that we use, to off-set some of the damaging effects of Brexit, the opportunities of Brexit to manifest an acceptance of our point of view on the high-tech industries, because those are the industries of the future.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. Advanced technology is one of the key industries in our industrial strategy, and certainly one of the important areas for our future prosperity. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority is the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to its delivery.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

But, my Lords, our trade is so integrated with that of the European Union, and our trade policy is based on WTO rules. The Trump Administration imposing tariffs based not on trade policy but on other policy areas means that we will have to be a party to any WTO disputes if we are to protect our interests. One consequence of Brexit is that we have not followed suit with having an anti-coercion instrument, which would allow us to respond quickly if tariffs are put in place on non-trade policy areas. Does the Minister not agree that, for the resilience of the British economy and our trade, it would be better to co-ordinate with our European trading allies to have a common anti-coercion trade policy?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. It is obviously very early days, and we will continue to take a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs. We remain prepared to defend the UK’s national interest where it is right to do so.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is very welcome to hear the Minister talk about the national interest, because the importance of a trade deal with the US obviously cannot be overstated. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce estimates that if a deal could be reached it would provide business with a stable basis for up to £1.5 trillion of bilateral investment between the two countries. The Prime Minister has said, very wisely, that he is neither with the EU nor the USA, but the EU would seem to be taking a different view. A spokesman said that we need to make up our mind who we are with. Given the regulatory differences between the two entities, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that closer alignment with the EU does not hinder progress towards a comprehensive trade agreement with the US?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the US is one of our largest trading partners, with trade worth around £300 billion in September 2024, representing 18% of total UK trade. We have a long and deep relationship with the US, and we will obviously want to enhance that as the trade discussions continue.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

If President Trump imposes tariffs on the European Union and not, we hope, on the United Kingdom, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to protect the part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—that has been left in the EU for some hundreds of trading areas? How will we be affected and what will His Majesty’s Government do to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we will always consider businesses across the country and their particular interests. However, it is difficult to comment on specific tariffs when there are few facts and speculation is taking place. Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, and goods moving into Northern Ireland do not subsequently enter the EU. We are considering what action would be in the best interests of all UK businesses and will make sure that the implications for Northern Ireland are considered in those discussions.

[Lord Mendoza (Con)]

My Lords, the imposition of tariffs can have effects beyond trade. For example, this morning the New York Times reported that the Chinese foreign ministry is considering relaxing its co-operation with America on the import of the products necessary to make fentanyl. Fentanyl, along with other synthetic opioids, has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in America. Are the Government ready for the reduction in China’s co-operation in this area and what might happen as a result, even in this country?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are aware that the US has imposed a tariff on all Chinese goods. I reiterate that it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships—that is a matter for the US—but we are of course aware of China’s retaliatory response. We respect China’s dialogue with the US and will not intervene. However, the Government are prepared to take any necessary action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and will continue to monitor the situation.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, to return to the Minister’s first Answer, of course I am sensible that there are things that you do not say in public, but I hope that in private His Majesty’s Government are making it clear that we have an interest in free trade within North America. We are the largest investor in the US and we will be affected by US tariffs on every component part that will be hit by them. We also have an enduring interest in the prosperity of Canada. How can anyone in this country think of Canada without thinking of Vimy Ridge, Juno beach and a hundred other battlefields where it has stood alongside us? I hope we will make it very clear that free trade between the United States and Canada is a British national interest.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Canada is a valued partner for the UK, including as a Commonwealth member state, and our shared ties are deep and historic, as noted by our respective Prime Ministers when they spoke on 5 February. Our trade relationship, which was worth more than £26 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3 in 2024, supports jobs and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. This is underpinned by our trade continuity agreement. These relationships are important and ongoing. We will continue these discussions and hope to further and deepen our ties with Canada in due course.

Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay and congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I am sure this House would agree with me that they both bring a wealth of experience, particularly in speaking up for working people, and I look forward to working closely with them as they navigate their way through our shared UK growth missions. My noble friend Lady Elliott—I am sure the House agrees—will be an important northern voice in this Chamber. I am sure that the House will also agree that we will all benefit from my noble friend Lord Barber’s experience in arbitration and conciliation. We have a lot to learn from him in that regard.

I am pleased to respond for the Government and . I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this Motion and allowing us to debate this very important issue. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Beamish, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, as members of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. They have helped guide and shape the Government’s work in this area.

Like my noble friend Lord Beamish, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the 550 who took the case to court and finally shone a light on the role of the Post Office in deliberately hiding the truth. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that certain members of the press—ITV has obviously been mentioned—and in particular Nick Wallis, played an important role in shining a light on this in a very dogged and determined way, and brought it certainly to my attention for the first time.

I welcome this opportunity to provide an update on the progress of the Horizon redress schemes and to discuss the contribution of Fujitsu to the costs of the scandal. This scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in this country’s history. Redress for the postmasters whose lives were scarred by it is of great importance for the new Government. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Elliott, gave very moving examples of the individuals impacted by the scandal and their lives being torn apart as a result. We recognise the devasting impact that the Post Office’s actions had on many postmasters’ lives, their families and their communities.

The Government remain focussed in our efforts to ensure that all postmasters receive full, fair and swift redress for the terrible ordeals to which they have been unjustly subject. That is why the Government have set aside around £1.8 billion for redress for the 2024-25 financial year onwards for those postmasters affected by this grievous miscarriage of justice. This is in addition to the around £200 million already paid to victims in previous years; this is not a ceiling but an estimate.

I turn now to the progress of the redress schemes. My department and Post Office Ltd publish monthly updates on progress. Since the end of June last year, the total amount of redress paid to victims of the Horizon scandal has more than doubled. Across this period, 1,409 more victims have settled their claims. Approximately £663 million has now been paid to over 4,300 claimants.

As we have identified, there are four separate redress schemes. This is by no means ideal, but, as noble Lords know, the reasons for it are historical. I will describe separately the progress of each scheme. I will start with the Horizon shortfall scheme, which covers postmasters who were not part of the group litigation and do not have a criminal conviction. It is run by Post Office Ltd, with funding, oversight and governance provided by the Department for Business and Trade. Approximately £315 million has been paid under this scheme. However, it has delivered redress too slowly, for two reasons. First, the scheme received many more applications than were originally anticipated: 7,000 and counting rather than a few hundred. Secondly, amounts are decided by a panel independent of the Post Office. This is intended to ensure fairness, but it makes the process slower. Combined with the huge volume of cases, this has caused real problems.

In March 2024, the Minister for Postal Affairs announced an optional fixed sum offer of £75,000 to those applicants who did not wish to complete a full claim. This has greatly accelerated progress. As well as providing speedy redress for those who accepted the offer, it has substantially shortened the queue for everyone else.

The Government have also acted to give postmasters assurance of fair redress. Many postmasters have had understandable concerns about any scheme run by the Post Office, even though redress offers are recommended by an independent panel, which the Post Office has never undercut. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked whether there was secret guidance to the Post Office lawyers on this issue. In response, I say that the principles of the Horizon shortfall scheme are public; offers are set by an independent panel, with a KC, an accountant and a retail expert. There is also a process to dispute the offer.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister when we are time-pressed. Can she undertake to explore whether the Post Office really is operating to those published principles? The material that I have seen seems to give credible backing to the suggestion that it is not. Indeed, there is an exchange featuring Post Office lawyers saying that they are working on a contractual basis and not a consequences-of-loss basis, which is entirely different.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Perhaps if she has some of that evidence, she could share it with us. I am not dismissing what the noble Baroness said. If she has that evidence, we will of course look into it. It is important that justice is done in this case, and is seen to be done.

In light of these concerns, in September the Minister announced that the Government are setting up an appeal process for postmasters who are unhappy with the full assessments of their claims, as recommended by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. We expect to receive the first appeals in the spring. The Government have committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals process. The Government are also actively looking at other ways in which the pace of redress can be sped up and have been supported by the recommendations from the advisory board and claimants’ lawyers in this area.

Post Office prosecutions of innocent postmasters were perhaps the most reprehensible part of this scandal. Some 111 of these unfortunate individuals had their convictions overturned by the courts. The Post Office set up the overturned convictions scheme to ensure that such people get fair redress for malicious prosecution and other losses. Approximately £65 million has been paid under this scheme. So far, 82 of the 111 exonerated people have submitted full and final claims for redress. In response, 73 redress offers have been made and 66 accepted and paid. This scheme provides the option of an upfront offer of £600,000 to claimants, ensuring swift redress is provided to those victims who do not wish to submit a full claim. This is larger than the fixed offer in the HSS, reflecting the greater harm done to those who were convicted. As of 3 January, 58 people have chosen to accept that offer.

The House will recall the widespread concern that people convicted as a result of the scandal were not being exonerated by the courts, often because the evidence had gone or because they could not face a further legal fight. These people were therefore exonerated en masse by Parliament in May of last year. As of 7 February, 557 individuals in England and Wales have been sent a letter, informing them that they have at least one conviction quashed by the Act. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are running parallel exercises.

In July last year, the Government launched the Horizon convictions redress scheme to address the suffering of these people, wherever they are in the UK. I am pleased to report that it has made excellent progress. Under this scheme, eligible applicants are entitled to an interim payment of £200,000. They can then opt to have their claims individually assessed or take the fixed offer of £600,000. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that 72% of people in this redress scheme have not yet been paid. Most of the costs of redress relates to convictions which were rightly overturned by Parliament. No full claims have yet been received from those individuals and the Government are not going to slow down the redress. When people claim and we get the full claims, we aim to make to make an offer within 40 working days in 90% of the cases.

As of 31 January, 383 initial interim claims had been received, of which 364 have been paid; 232 full claims have been received, with 208 of those paid and 24 offers accepted and awaiting payment. The department’s target is for the first offers to be provided in response to 90% of full claims within 40 working days of receipt. A total of £156 million, including interim payments, has been paid to eligible claimants under this scheme. BBC News recently ran a story of two more claimants having received their £600,000 claims. It is very good to hear those individual cases of justice being done, even if it has taken far too long.

This brings us to the GLO scheme—the group litigation scheme. The group litigation court order case celebrated in last year’s ITV drama provided redress which proved to be unequal and unfair when compared with that provided by the HSS. The GLO scheme is intended to put that right.

The scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office. Last year, Sir Alan Bates expressed concern that the scheme was not delivering fast enough. The Government agreed, but the problem was that we were not receiving the full claims. However, those concerns have now been eased. Out of the 492 postmasters eligible for the scheme, the department has received 408 completed claims. When it receives claims, the department acts quickly. It aims to make offers in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a completed claim. As of 31 January, 89% of offers were made within that target period.

If any postmaster cannot resolve their redress through such bilateral discussions, they can go to the scheme’s independent panel. So far, only five cases have required help from the panel. By contrast, 257 cases have been by agreement between the department and the postmaster, either in response to the first offer or a subsequent challenge. This demonstrates that the department is making fair offers.

A total of £128 million, including interim payments, has been paid to postmasters under the GLO scheme. The Government expect to have paid redress to the great majority of the GLO claimants by 31 March 2025.

My noble friend Lord Sikka raised a question about the DWP convictions. I can assure him that the Minister for Transformation is looking into this, a review is being established, and I hope to provide more information about that. My noble friend also raised questions about the Lost Chances charity. A meeting has been arranged between it and my colleague, Minister Thomas.

We have been talking about the Horizon redress schemes but, as noble Lords have pointed out, a predecessor system known as Capture also involved errors and bugs which affected some postmasters. I pay tribute to the tireless advocacy of my noble friend Lord Beamish on behalf of this group.

In response, the Minister announced on 17 December last year that the Government will be providing full and fair redress to postmasters who were victims of errors and bugs in the Capture programme. The Government will continue to discuss this work with my noble friend Lord Beamish, and we will return to the House in the spring with an update.

Fujitsu supplied the Horizon software at the heart of this scandal. The sorry tale of its introduction has been fully explored by Sir Wyn Williams’ public inquiry. The Government of course welcome Fujitsu’s acknowledgement of a moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal and continue to talk regularly to Fujitsu about this. The Post Office Minister will be meeting Fujitsu’s Europe CEO shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked: if Fujitsu were in jail, would we be giving it the millions that we are currently giving it? It is of course true that Fujitsu has admitted wrongdoing, but at the moment we do not know whether it is criminal. Deciding on that before reviewing the evidence is part of what has caused the scandal, and we should not repeat it. In its apology, Fujitsu recognised that it has a civil liability, and this will be dealt with through the financial contributions which it has promised.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others raised the issue of errors made by the Post Office auditors. The noble Lords have referred the performance of Post Office auditors to the Financial Reporting Council, and my department officials have also spoken to it. It is the right body to consider this, and the Government should not second-guess it. But, going back to the issue of Fujitsu’s contribution, the full amount cannot be determined until we have Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will set out the full facts of what happened.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Sikka raised the potential for an interim contribution from Fujitsu. I would say that it is too soon to decide on Fujitsu’s final contribution to the costs of the scandal, but I agree with noble Lords that an interim contribution would be very welcome and appropriate in these circumstances. Given the nature of the discussions that will need to take place on Fujitsu’s contribution, the Government will not be giving a running commentary on them. But I can promise that we will keep the House informed of progress at appropriate moments.

The Horizon system is still in place, unfortunately. A new version was introduced in the late 2010s, which the High Court accepted was “relatively robust”, but it is none the less very much in need of replacement. There can be no overnight fix for this lack of investment.

We are working with the Post Office to secure a new system which is fit for purpose, and which will not involve Fujitsu. In the meantime, the Post Office is, unfortunately, still dependent on the Horizon system to run its branches. I understand the widespread desire to see Fujitsu out of the Post Office picture immediately, but the only way to achieve this would be to shut down all local post offices and deny citizens the vital services which they provide. We do not think that we can do that, and so Fujitsu must remain for the time being. The Post Office has extended its contract until March 2026 but is looking to reduce its input as soon as possible.

Recognising its responsibility for the scandal, Fujitsu has voluntarily paused bidding for new government contracts. However, the Post Office is not the only area where government needs help which is only practicable to get from Fujitsu. So, while we agree with Fujitsu’s decision not to bid for government contracts in general, there will be situations where existing contracts need to be extended, or new ones begun, although generally in connection with existing services. Of course, we understand why that is undesirable, but it is being done only because currently there are no viable alternatives.

There have been allegations in the media that Fujitsu is seeking and receiving contracts beyond those limits. I assure the House that this is not the case. The Crown Representative and his team in the Cabinet Office, who oversee all the Government’s dealings with Fujitsu, are keeping a close watch on the situation.

I agree with noble Lords that individuals and companies responsible for the Horizon scandal must be held to account. The Metropolitan Police is keeping a close eye on the Williams inquiry and has a number of staff working on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked about the involvement of law processes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that it has more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms relating to the scandal. There are other channels of accountability, too, and all of these need to be investigated in due course. My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the wholesale culture change needed at the Post Office, and my noble friend Lord Sikka raised specific questions about the culpability of the directors. This will all be covered in Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will establish what happened, what went wrong and why.

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, raised the question of an independent body—

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting. I know she has had a lot of questions to answer; I very much hope she will send detailed replies to a lot of the questions I asked. One matter was the case of 92 year-old Mrs Betty Brown, who, despite promises from the Minister six weeks ago, is still waiting for her compensation. Secondly, I asked whether the Minister could meet me and Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan, who had been refused any compensation and whose husband committed suicide, unfortunately, under pressure from Post Office allegations. Would the Minister be good enough to meet us, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to go on to say that a number of noble Lords have asked very specific questions, and I will of course write. I will just deal quickly with the idea that there should be an independent body for redress in the future. That is certainly something that we are looking into, and it is a very helpful suggestion coming forward from the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, among others.

Horizon was a terrible scandal, and it is right that we should continue to keep it in our minds through debates such as this. The Government are determined to learn the lessons from it, which is why Sir Williams’s report will be so important, to deliver full and fair compensation, as quickly as possible, to those postmasters who were so unjustly used. I thank noble Lords for this very helpful debate.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their initial assessment of the scale and balance of responses to their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government consulted on several issues regarding copyright and AI. That consultation closed on 25 February and over 11,500 responses were received. We welcome this significant engagement from across the creative and AI sectors. Our priority must be now to analyse the evidence that has been submitted. Proposals will be set out in due course, including a fuller breakdown of the types of respondent to the consultation.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I declare my interests as an author, like many Members of your Lordships’ House. Does she agree that the intellectual property of creatives in this country is no less precious or important than the intellectual property of tech companies that have, frankly, already been scraping the internet for creative work and ripping these people off? Wherever the policy lands in the future as a result of the consultation, will the Government consider offering assistance to creatives, many of whom are really not very well off, to ensure that they have restitution for the grand theft that has already been perpetrated?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course the Government recognise the concerns that many in the creative industries have about the potential impact of AI on that sector. This is why we want to act now to give UK creators greater control over their works and more transparency about how their work is being used, as well as creating the ability for them to be paid for it. That is exactly what the proposals in our consultation aim to achieve. But I should say that this is a complicated area, because AI adoption also has the potential to drive growth across the economy, including in the creative industries. For example, 38% of creative industry businesses are already using AI technologies. So this is a complicated area, but we know we have to find a solution and protect the interests of creatives in the future in the way that the noble Baroness has alerted us to.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, the Government intend to take out the transparency amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Kidron in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. What provision are they going to make to ensure that creatives know that their copyrighted work has been pirated by AI models, so that they can then take action?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government agree with many of the points made during the debate on the data Bill, and in other discussions in this House, that further transparency is needed from AI developers about their use of web crawlers and the materials that they use to train their models. However, we have a consultation out and it would be premature to commit to specific legislation until we have analysed the responses to that consultation and heard all the voices in this sector. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Viscount that we intend to resolve this issue. It is one that the previous Government failed to resolve and we need to resolve it now, so we will take action as soon as the consultation has been analysed and resolved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there has been widespread concern that the Secretary of State in the Minister’s department has been very happy to meet representatives of big tech and AI firms but less willing to meet representatives of our thriving but threatened creative industries. Of course, in due course his meetings will be published through the Government’s quarterly transparency returns but, given how germane this is to a contentious area of policy currently under discussion, will she give consideration to publishing that list of meetings sooner?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that information will be published in the normal way. What I will say is that the Minister for AI and Digital Government and the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism have been extremely active in engaging on this subject. They have held round tables with the creative industries and the AI sector during the consultation, which is a joint consultation involving DCMS and DSIT. This morning, the Secretary of State for DSIT explained that, and also said that he is of course open to meetings with the creative sector. All that is on the table and there is no problem about dialogue or engagement. That will go on in the next few months as well, while we seek to find a solution to this issue.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, regardless of whatever future plans are brought forward, will the Minister confirm that, if the outcome of current challenges shows that our current IP regime is legal, the Government will provide assistance to those creators whose IP has been stolen on an industrial scale by AI companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a complicated copyright area and there are some legal cases in the offing. It is a complicated area that needs a holistic approach. Our view is that addressing the issue in isolation will not provide sufficient legal clarity or resolve the issue in a way that I think that most noble Lords would expect. The consultation will help guide us on this issue and I urge noble Lords to await its outcome, which I hope will provide some solutions.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, despite what the Minister says, there is a basic concern about the framing of this issue by the Government, their perceived need for a balance between the tech companies and the creative industries, and the logic of that in terms of the need for someone to give something up. Should any side have to give up something that is already theirs, morally and in law: namely, work made by artists, who therefore hold the copyright? This is not about balance; it is about rights.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Earl is right, and we are trying to find a way to ensure that those rights are upheld. However, all these sectors need to grow in our economy. As I was just explaining, the creative sector uses AI, so it is not as simple “us and them” situation. AI is increasingly being used by all sectors across our economy. We need to find a way through this that rewards creators in the way that the noble Earl has outlined, which I think we all understand.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise of course that the task of analysing the results of the consultation still needs to go ahead. That said, does the Minister agree with us that digital watermarking is going to be a key component of the solution to the AI and copyright issue? If so, what does she make of the number of digital watermarking solutions that are now coming to market? In her view, is this to be welcomed or should we be pursuing a single standard for digital watermarks?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount has made an important point about watermarks, and that is certainly one solution that we are considering. The issue of transparency is crucial to the outcome of this issue, and watermarks would certainly help with that. I do not have a view as yet on whether we should have one or many, but I am hoping that the consultation will give us some guidance on that.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is right when she says that AI is extensively used in the creative industries and the music industry, and has been for a long time—as a servant, not a master of creatives. Is this not an opportunity to look at those companies such as DAACI that try to use AI in an ethical way which ensures that creators are rewarded for their input?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that proposal. Again, I hope that all these companies will contribute, or have contributed, to the consultation, because those are exactly the sorts of standards we want to achieve. We want to make sure that creators get the right awards; that is certainly our intention through this consultation. We need to find a way through this. We are working hard and we will not give up until we have found a way to resolve the issue.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, all pointed out the way in which big tech has already stolen large amounts of property. Had that property been cash or gold, we surely would be getting a different reaction from the Government—yet it is actually the same thing. I have a constructive suggestion to help the Minister. How about a universal basic income for the creative sector as compensation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful suggestion. Hopefully, she has fed that into the consultation. I am sure it will be considered as one of the many proposals to resolve this issue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government received representations, formal or informal, on this subject from the Government of the United States and, if so, will they publish the substance of those representations?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

To my knowledge, we have not received any representations from the US Government. I am sure any such discussions that take place will become public very quickly.

Plant Oxford Site

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying how delighted we all are to see the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench. We were all appalled to hear about her sad accident and hope that her appearance today means that she is now restored to full health.

Having said all that, given BMW’s decision to review its £600 million investment in electric Mini production due to slowing EV demand, I ask the Government whether they now acknowledge that their decision not to delay the 2030 ban on internal combustion engine cars was a mistake. Will they reconsider their approach to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for automotive investment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and look forward to working with him in our new roles in the future.

The precise timeline for the launch of Oxford’s Mini new electric vehicle models is a commercial matter for the company. It is not unusual for a manufacturer in the automotive industry to adjust its plans for future products, including production dates. However, the reasons given by BMW are the “multiple uncertainties” that it is facing rather than any specific issue. Its concerns are about the timings and not about the willingness to invest. We are, of course, in regular dialogue with BMW to understand its future investment timelines and to discuss its plans for the UK plants and those employed there.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps it would help if we identified some of the headwinds that our automotive industry is facing. To meet the mandate and try to sell enough EVs, last year our top motor brands discounted a total of £4.5 million and still they will not reach the mandate and will face penalties. On top of that, energy costs are up to 65% higher than the costs faced in the rest of Europe and of course there are higher business rate multiples and employer NIC costs coming up. Those are the challenges that our businesses face. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is a challenge and undertake to find ways of better meeting it, perhaps by helping consumers to buy more EVs and looking at energy costs?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we understand the challenges faced by the sector. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders across the automotive industry and beyond to support demand for zero-emission electric vehicles. Defra has been consulting on this issue and recently closed a consultation to understand stakeholders’ views on the transition to zero-emission vehicles. However, this is not just a UK issue; a number of countries, particularly in Europe, have similar zero-emission targets for cars. It is a challenge that all automotive companies are facing globally. Nevertheless, we are committed to making the UK one of the best places in the world for automotive investment. In the Budget, we committed over £2 billion of capital and research funding for zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and its supply chains. We continue to work with this very important growth sector; it is one of the arms of our industrial strategy, so we see a strong future for the automotive industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made an important point.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

May I ask my noble friend to pay tribute to BMW? These are very difficult times, with global headwinds making it extremely difficult for the automotive industry. BMW is an excellent employer, and I hope that there will not be redundancies, but should there, be I hope that the Government would do everything they could to safeguard jobs in Oxford. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to BMW for the work that it does in the community—it believes in enhancing the lives and opportunities of people who live in the environs of the factory.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I concur with my noble friend’s point. BMW often describes Oxford as the home of the Mini and sees that investment as crucial. I hope that my noble friend and other noble Lords will welcome our new announcement for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential sectors within that, in which the automotive sector could well play a part. My noble friend Lord Vallance will be the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor champion; it will ensure new investment into the sector and, I hope, provide further encouragement for BMW to carry on investing in the Mini lines.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in light of the lighter restrictions which many of our allies have placed on the import of cars made in China, and given that the labour used to manufacture those vehicles is often connected to slave labour in Xinjiang and there can therefore never be fair or proper competition in any sense of the word, what account are the Government taking of the threat posed by the flooding of our markets by the unrestricted import of large numbers of electric cars from China?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very aware of the situation with regard to China, in particular Chinese electric vehicles. China’s role in the global automotive industry is growing, which presents both risks and opportunities for us. We will not hesitate to act where that creates issues or problems for the UK, but we are very mindful of the opportunities that this presents as well. Our automotive industry in the UK is very different from those of other European countries because it is export oriented; we export 80% of our cars abroad, unlike, for example, the EU and the US, where production is sold domestically. Nevertheless, we are aware of the issues that the noble Lord raises and will continue to act in our interests.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the daughter of a former assembly line worker at Cowley—I am very conscious of the incredibly skilled and dedicated workforce there—and as a trade unionist who, frankly, has worked with motor companies and unions through many ups and downs over the years and knows the importance of working together. Can my noble friend reassure us that, as well as working closely with the company, the Government are working closely with the unions to ensure a strong future for the car industry and that that future is electric?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. We are talking not just to the employers but to the unions about the future for the staff employed there. They have a central role to play in helping us build the development of the manufacturing of the future. When we enact the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, there will be further opportunities for unions to be consulted and involved in decisions such as this.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I have a deep concern. There is now a general view at Motability, which I founded, as some noble Lords will be aware, that it will not go to electric cars. For many car manufacturers today—very much in Germany and other places such as that—the margins are so thin that, over the next few years, many of them will go broke. I draw that to the Government’s attention before we put money into a company which may eventually go broke. Capitalism will work, but not necessarily in our favour.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point of which I was not aware. I will go away and look into it. We are investing in the development of electric vehicles; just today, the Department for Transport has extended the plug-in van grant for another year to help van drivers and businesses transition to zero-emission vehicles, which will mean that businesses and van drivers can receive grants of up to £2,500 when buying small vans. I do not know whether that will apply to the circumstances the noble Lord mentions, but I will certainly look at whether that is covered.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 December 2024 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must set thresholds for three categories of service: category 1, category 2A and category 2B. The services that fall into each of these categories must comply with additional duties, with category 1 services having the most duties placed on them. These duties are in addition to the core duties which apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope, including illegal content duties and child safety duties.

All categorised services must comply with transparency reporting duties. They must also have terms on parents’ ability to access information about how their child used a service, in the tragic event that their child dies. Category 1 and 2A services also have additional duties to tackle paid-for fraudulent advertising. They will also have to comply with enhanced risk assessment and record-keeping duties.

The most additional obligations will fall on category 1 services. These are the services with the most users, and which spread content easily, quickly and widely. To the extent it is proportionate to do so, category 1 services must give adults more choice about who they interact with and the content they see. That includes suicide, self-harm and hate-inciting content. Additionally, category 1 services must protect journalistic and news publisher content and content of democratic importance. The duties will also hold these companies to account over their terms of service, making sure that they keep the promises they make to their users.

The Act requires that specific factors must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding the thresholds for each category. The threshold conditions for user-to-user services, categories 1 and 2B, must be set on user numbers, functionalities and any other characteristics or factors related to the user-to-user part of the service the Secretary of State deems relevant. For category 2A, they must be set on the number of users of the search engine, plus any other factors or characteristics.

For category 1, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on how quickly, easily and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service. For category 2A, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the search engine on the level of risk of harm to individuals from search content that is illegal or harmful to children. For category 2B, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on the level of risk of harm to individuals from illegal content and content that is harmful to children disseminated by means of the services.

These considerations formed the basis of Ofcom’s independent research and advice, published in March last year, which the Secretary of State had to consider when setting threshold conditions. Once in force, these regulations will enable Ofcom to set up a public register of categorised services, which it expects to publish this summer. Ofcom will then consult on the remaining draft codes of practice and guidance, where relevant, for the additional duties.

In laying these regulations before Parliament, the Secretary of State has considered Ofcom’s advice and decided to follow it. I know that this decision will not please everyone, so let me set out why it was made.

Ofcom’s research concluded that, as the number of users of a service increases, so does how widely content spreads. The statutory consideration of category 1 under the Act is

“how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service”.

Therefore, it was concluded that user numbers should not be ignored. Setting thresholds for category 1 that take into account the size and reach of services is also essential to make sure we avoid inadvertently categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services.

I turn now to the regret amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled before the House. It is disappointing that a regret amendment has been tabled. I understand that it is because of the noble Lord’s view that risk should be the main consideration for category 1. He would ideally like to see so-called “small but risky” services, such as small suicide forums, brought into scope.

I also want to acknowledge that the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made it possible to create threshold combinations by reference only to functionalities and any other factors or characteristics. However, in practice this was difficult to do at the time.

In setting the threshold conditions, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework, which means he still must consider easy, quick and wide dissemination of user-generated content for category 1. He must also act within the powers afforded to him in setting the thresholds, which does not allow for sub-delegation to outside parties, such as coroners or Ofcom.

Unintended consequences were considered, including unintentionally categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services. I want to be very clear through this that the Government did consider options to bring small but risky services into scope, including those proposed by many thoughtful people on this complicated issue, but ultimately a workable and robust condition for capturing small but risky services was not found.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that in responding the Minister will follow not just the commitments that I made when I was in her place in a previous Parliament but the spirit that ushered that Act on to the statute book. It was a great example of cross-party working in this House. I feel rather existential; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether anything a Minister says at the Dispatch Box is worth it. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out that the Parkinson rule has been honoured more in the breach than the observance. I hope that in responding to the regrets that have been voiced in all corners of the House, the Minister will act in the spirit of the debates that gave us this landmark Act. We will continue to scrutinise it to make sure it does indeed make the United Kingdom the safest place to be online.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge all the hard work, and the cross-party consensus, that went into creating the Online Safety Act. For all the questions that noble Lords are raising today, it is still seen as being a global leader on online safety, so it is certainly nothing we should be ashamed of. I still believe it will be transformative when it is rolled out in the next few weeks and months, when it really will begin to have an impact. I pay tribute to those who did all that work at the time.

There has been a suggestion that we have just kowtowed in some way. I cannot tell noble Lords for how many hours, days and weeks my office and the Secretary of State’s office have pored over the detail of this to make sure that we feel we are doing the best we can to implement the Act in the way that was intended. Noble Lords who have read the draft statement of strategic priorities, which we sent to Ofcom, will see that we are reiterating a lot of the issues that colleagues around the Chamber are raising today. They are our priorities as well. It came down to the practicalities of some of the issues we were being asked to enforce. I hope that in my responses now I can address some of those questions.

I should be specific about the user number thresholds that have been chosen. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and others, just to put it on the record, I note that Ofcom recommended category 1 threshold combinations of either: user numbers of more than 7 million UK users in addition to the functionality of forwarding or resharing user-generated content and the characteristic of a content recommender system to be met; or user numbers of more than 34 million UK users and a content recommender system to be met.

Ofcom specifically set out in its research and advice, published last March, that it considered but discounted a recommendation that allowed for the categorisation of services for category 1 by reference exclusively to functionalities and characteristics. That was because the research indicated that user reach has an important role to play in content dissemination. Ofcom made a regulatory judgment on where to set the user number thresholds, based on an assessment of what comprised targeted and proportionate regulatory action. Ofcom also undertook sensitivity testing on the thresholds.

In this debate it has been clear that some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, think there will be services—particularly, as we have been debating, small but risky services—that evade the core duties of the Act. I want to assure noble Lords that the legislation does not allow for that. All regulated user-to-user services and search engines, no matter what their size, will be subject to the existing illegal content duties and, where relevant, the child safety duties; the categories do not change that.

The codes on illegal content duties, which were laid in Parliament, have passed the objection period and may now be issued by Ofcom. The duties should be in effect next month. They will force services to put in place systems and processes to tackle illegal content and require services to name a senior person accountable for compliance. If a service is likely to be accessed by children, the child safety duties will require services to conduct a child safety risk assessment and provide safety measures for child users. We expect that these duties will come into effect this summer, on the basis that the codes for the duties will be passed by then. Together, the illegal content and child safety duties will mark the biggest material change in online safety for UK citizens since the internet era began. By Ofcom’s own assessment, the Act may cover up to 100,000 services of various sizes, showing that the legislation reaches far and wide to ensure important protections for users, particularly children, online.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Kidron, asked why category 1 thresholds are not risk-based. I will now turn to that.

The decision of the Secretary of State to set the categorisation thresholds as per Ofcom’s recommendations, rather than deviating from its research, was as follows. When the OSA was introduced, category 1 thresholds were due to be assessed based on the level of risk of harm to adults from priority content disseminated by means of the service. As noble Lords will know, this was removed during the passage of the Bill by the then Government and replaced with consideration of the likely impact of the number of users of the service, its functionalities, and how easily, quickly and widely user-generated content is disseminated. This was a significant change and, while the risk of harm may be seen to be a more relevant factor, this is the position under the Act as it now stands.

As I have already acknowledged, the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Parkinson—did make it possible to require threshold conditions on functionality and characteristics to be met without user numbers. However, as I have set out, the considerations within the Act, Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences have meant that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting a threshold for category 1.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

The Minister is setting out a clear case, with which I, and I think many others in this House, disagree. To cut to the chase, the Minister has just said that the Government understand the amendment passed in this House on 19 July 2023 but have decided, on the advice of Ofcom, that that amendment does not work and therefore should be ignored. We should be clear that that is what has happened. The Government should own that decision and the House, when it votes on the amendment tonight, will decide whether it thinks that is an acceptable way to behave or an unacceptable way to behave.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can only reiterate what I have already said: we took Ofcom’s advice after a great deal of scrutiny of why it had come to that piece of advice. Its advice was that the key factor to be taken into account was how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated. That is the basis on which we made that decision.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Sorry to interrupt but, to return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is it the Government’s position that, although the law says it is permissible, and indeed was expected, that in making their decision about category 1 the Government would require Ofcom to ensure that both reach and risk were taken account of, the Government have decided that only reach will be taken account of?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Ofcom’s advice was that how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated are the key factors that it needed to make the judgment. I cannot say anything more than that.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but maybe this would be a good moment to answer my question about the hierarchy of text in an Act versus the regulator’s advice. It was my understanding, when the House agreed to that amendment, that it was an instruction to the regulator rather than something “nice to have” if it decided later that it did not like it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The SI before us today, based on Ofcom’s advice, is the best way that we can find, in terms of practicality, of enforcing what was written in the Act.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to follow Ofcom’s advice, and that the Government have a separate decision-making moment—a process—to consider that advice and reach their own decision? So it is not on Ofcom; it is on the Government. It is the Government who think it is the correct way forward to ignore what was previously in the Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that is a factor that we considered. The Secretary of State received Ofcom’s advice, duly reflected on it, looked at all the evidence and decided that we would abide by Ofcom’s advice on the issue. It was the Secretary of State’s decision, and that is why we have this SI in front of us today.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister heard the example that I gave and is aware of the harm that was done as a result of using the small channel Telegram. For harm to be done, the material does not need to be widely disseminated; it is disseminated through a very small group of hardcore believers in some of these strange cults, and that is how the harm is done. The fact that it is not widely disseminated is completely irrelevant. One person taking that onboard and then doing something unmentionable should be against the Act as it was written and as we understood it would be legislated for, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The breadth and extent of dissemination and the number of users are irrelevant.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole “small but risky” issue that the noble Lord is raising is hugely close to our heart. We have engaged with Ofcom and pressed it to take more action on the sort of small but risky services that he is talking about. Our view is that they do not necessarily have to be dealt with under the categorisation process; there are other ways. Ofcom has assured us, in the way that it has come back to us, that there are other ways in which it is addressing them.

It is not as though they have been discarded. It is an absolute priority for this Government that we address the “small but risky” issue, and we are doing so. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that that is followed through. As I said when I opened this debate, the fact is that we have worked with Ofcom and it is setting up a task force to look at this, while separately we are looking at these issues. What more can we do? On the position at the moment regarding the rollout of the SI and the categorisation, the reality is that Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences, means that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting category 1 and so on.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Minister rightly said “currently” and, even if that is the case, why are the Government closing the door to having this option available to them and Ofcom later? She is right that Ofcom is doing a lot of work in ways other than categorisation, but surely she and her colleagues in government can see that this is a useful tool to have in the armoury in the fight against the sorts of harms noble Lords have been raising. Why are the regulations written so tightly as to close that off and avoid taking the concession that was so hard won by my noble friend Lady Morgan and others when the Bill went through Parliament?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only say what I have already said on this. We are looking at “small but risky”. Ofcom is working hard on this, and we are working hard on this. We can review whether the categorisation process is working. As I have already set out, that option is available to us further down the line. But, at the moment, as with other parts of the Online Safety Act, we felt we needed to get on with it and put these measures into place. Already, the categorisation provisions will take another year or 18 months to come into effect, so it is not as though that is the most imminent part of the implementation of the Act. I hear what noble Lords say. None of these issues are off the table, but we just wanted to get the Act rolled out in as quick and as current a form as we could.

If I could move on, in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Parkinson, I am not able to share the legal advice, but, as I have said, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework. The current thresholds are legally valid and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In addition to small but risky services, even though in principle there is a provision that allows a user number threshold not to be met, it does not for example allow for sub-delegations to other parties such as coroners, which was another concern of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.

The decision on the categorisation thresholds has led, as I have just been saying, some to assume that certain small high-risk services are being overlooked by the legislation. However, this is not the case, as they will be subject to the stringent illegal harm and child safety duties. I know that Members are aware that the categorisation of small but risky services would also not prevent or deter users who were determined to access harmful content on dedicated forums. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the question of small but risky services evading the core duties, such as the terms of service and user empowerment. Services that exist solely to host abusive or pro-suicide content, for example, will not have terms of service banning such content, so enforcing those terms would be ineffective in reducing harm.

In addition, the user empowerment tools will enable adult users of category 1 services to avoid certain types of content, such as harmful suicide content. We anticipate that these duties will be most beneficial when services have commercial incentives to prohibit harmful content and where users wish to avoid content they may otherwise see, but not where users are actively seeking out harmful content.

I hope that begins to explain the Secretary of State’s decision. I have to say, and have said, that it was a difficult one and, while we acknowledge the possibility of deviating from Ofcom’s advice and utilising the option to set threshold combinations without a user number, this would not have had the effect of meaningfully reducing harm on small but risky services but would risk regulating hundreds of small low-risk services.

Regarding Ofcom’s small but risky supervisor task force, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about, I am confident that Ofcom can effectively use that task force to address these issues. Ofcom already had plans to ensure compliance with the first duties that go live under the Act. These include using targeted enforcement action against small risky services where there is evidence of a significant ongoing risk of harm to users, especially children, and an apparent lack of safety measures in place. In serious cases, Ofcom can seek a court order imposing business disruption measures if there is evidence of continued non-compliance. This could mean asking a third party to withdraw from the service or asking an internet service provider to limit access.

I hope that, as the child safety and illegal content duties come into force this year and the work of the task force begins, those in this House who are concerned will be able to see how these services will not evade their responsibilities under the Act.

Regarding Wikipedia, in response to the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, the Government are not in a position to confirm which services will be designated as category 1. Indeed, this is Ofcom’s statutory obligation once the regulations have passed and are in force. It is worth noting that many of the duties on categorised services are subject to the principle of proportionality. This requires Ofcom to consider measures that are technically feasible to providers of a certain size or capacity. Where a code of practice is relevant to a duty, Ofcom must have regard to a principle of proportionality. What is proportionate for one kind of service might not be proportionate for another.

The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, also queried how Ofcom could make assessments against the definitions of certain functionalities, characteristics and user number thresholds in the statutory instrument. Once the regulations have been approved by Parliament, Ofcom will issue requests for information and will start assessing services against the threshold conditions.

I also understand that there has been concern that small low-risk platforms, such as local community forums, are being overburdened by the Act and its duties. I must reiterate that these platforms, often run by a small number of users, will not be captured by the categorisation thresholds debated today. At the same time, I acknowledge that the new illegal content and child safety duties will require some additional work from these types of services.

I assure those here today that the principles of proportionality and risk are embedded into the duties on services and Ofcom in relation to the codes of practice. This means that small and low-risk services should not be overburdened by the duties in the Online Safety Act. In efforts to ease the process for small services, Ofcom is providing support to online services to help them to understand their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. These can be found on Ofcom’s website.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson raised the question of engagement with relevant committees. I agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act and welcome the expertise Members of both Houses bring. The Government agree that it is vital that regulators are accountable for their services, including through existing annual reports and reporting requirements. We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as any other parliamentary committees that may have an interest in the Act. I am more than happy to meet my noble friend Lord Stevenson to discuss how that could be progressed further.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, I want to put on record that a letter was shared with the Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to concerns raised during the Commons debate.

I must again stress that the Secretary of State will be holding these thresholds and the wider regulatory framework under review going forward and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to tackle risky services of any size.

I would finally like to thank all those who have contributed today: the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Pannick, Lord Moylan, Lord Stevenson, Lord Russell and Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron, Lady Penn—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who continues to put valuable work, expertise and energy into making the UK a safer place, both online and in the material world. I specifically thank user safety groups that have engaged with the Government on this matter and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his dedication to his work on these issues.

I recognise that there are some who would like to see changes to this instrument and some who believe that the decisions of the Government do not align with the intentions of the Act. I hope they understand that every decision made by this Government is made with the intention of bringing about the Act in an important and timely way. For too long, children and adults in this country have had to grapple with an unsafe online environment, and the instrument that we have debated today shows real progress.

I do not shy away from the challenge we face in navigating the ever-changing online world. I recognise that the Act is imperfect. However, it is not the destination but a significant step in the right direction. There will always be more that we can do. Years of delay and lack of progress have come at an unfathomable cost for vulnerable children and adults, with lives cut short and families’ worlds turned upside down. It is time to deliver change. I hope noble Lords will consider the time pressure and the fact that we have to get on with the rollout of the Act. I urge noble Lords to approve this vital legislation today.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I raised a number of questions and I would be grateful, if the Minister is not going to answer them in the moment, if she could write to me about the Joint Committee, the hierarchy of the Act and statements from the Dispatch Box versus this decision and other decisions.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, if I have not covered any issues, I will of course write to noble Lords to clarify any matters that are outstanding.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, used the expression “emotions raised”. That is exactly what this regret amendment has done. There is real anger about the way in which this statutory instrument has been put together. I think many noble Lords who were involved in the Act were extremely proud of our work, as has been expressed.

The Minister has made a valiant attempt, but I am afraid that she has been given a hospital pass. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State did not have to accept the advice from Ofcom. Its advice about functionalities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made absolutely clear, and the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, put forward, not to mention the evidence from the anti-Semitism foundation, all indicate that there is considerable belief around this House that we are not dealing with the high-risk but smaller sites such as Telegram, 8chan and 4chan.

In these circumstances, as I believe is accepted by many noble Lords across the House, the Government have got this completely wrong and it needs rethinking. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I too welcome the Minister back. As the House will know, there is a long tradition in the creative industries that, before someone has a performance, you wish them the best by saying, “Break a leg”. I feel that that might not be opportune in this case, but I am very pleased to have the Minister back. I will keep my contribution brief, because the points have been well made.

As a former director of ITV and director of a TV production company—none other than that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, funnily enough—I understand the importance of the creative industry. Of course, it is a massive industry in the UK, contributing some $124 billion a year. I know from personal experience that fundamental to a successful creative industry is a copyright regime that has the confidence of the people, that is seen as fair, that is trusted and that is transparent. I see this almost like four legs of a chair, and the problem is that, if you wobble any of those legs, you undermine all of it.

This is a complex area—I think we all appreciate that—and I appreciate that option 0A came out of an earlier consultation, with people and the civil servants being creative in order to come up with a solution. But my concern is that, by not consulting on option 0A in such a complex area, we can get into unintended consequences. It is only when you really talk to the people at the sharp end that you understand what the true industry impact might be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly said, with this having a detrimental impact particularly on US rights owners, we are all aware of the unintended consequences it could have in what is, given all the sanctions, a very volatile situation. So we need to tread very carefully and, given that, it seems eminently sensible for us to consult the industry.

I appreciate that at this stage, regret Motions are normally seen as a bit of a slap on the wrist—I say that as a Minister myself not that long ago—but I ask the Minister to go back to the department and seriously explore whether we can do anything to take on board the view of the experts in this space. Their input is vital, and I hope that we can find a way through this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome back. I am sorry that I missed some important debates while I was away, but I assure noble Lords that I watched them vigorously on television—it was absolutely riveting. I am pleased to be back and to hear that noble Lords had a constructive meeting with my colleague Minister Clark on these issues. I too welcome this debate and the opportunity it provides to reassure noble Lords, I hope, about the process that led to the order and the policy it implements. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, rightly said, this is a complex area, but one in which we have sought to find a fair solution. That has always been the overriding aim of this consultation and of others in the past.

Noble Lords have referred to the background of the consultation process that preceded this legislation, but it is important that I set it out clearly on record. UK copyright law gives performers such as musicians and copyright owners such as record labels the rights to be paid equitable remuneration when their sound recordings are broadcast or played in public. These public performance rights are an important source of revenue for the UK recorded music sector. According to data from the BPI, the UK trade body for record labels, UK recorded music revenue from these sources was £154.5 million in 2023, which equates to more than 10% of total revenues for the recorded music sector.

However, as noble Lords have said, not every country provides equivalent protections for this copyright law. In some countries, performers and record labels—including British performers and British record labels—are not paid when their music is broadcast on the radio or played in public. Whether UK law should provide public performance rights to performers and producers from such countries was the focus of the public consultation run by the Intellectual Property Office in early 2024. A range of evidence and views were submitted in response to that consultation by creators, collective licensing societies, record labels, broadcasters and academics. I stress that the Government carefully considered the views and evidence submitted to the consultation before deciding on a way forward, and that we received a range of views.

The approach implemented by this order largely preserves the effect of the former law—option 0 in the consultation—except for some limited changes. This means that more foreign performers qualify for the right than previously—a change that was made to allow the UK to fulfil its international commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether we were in effect maintaining the status quo. This SI largely preserves the effect of the law as it formerly applied at the point that the SI took effect. The SI took effect simultaneously with the changes in the CPTPP Act. The consultation also explicitly noted that the effects of that Act may be modified by this SI.

To come back to the main point, under the law as amended by this order, some foreign performers enjoy these public performance rights only where and to the extent that British performers enjoy equivalent protection under the other country’s law. The Government adopted this approach in light of the evidence submitted at consultation, which indicated that the other options under consideration would have meant substantial costs and disruption to the UK’s creative industries. I am not sure that noble Lords gave enough credence to that argument. For example, granting rights to all foreign performers, regardless of whether the other country provides reciprocal protection to British performers, would mean additional costs to the UK recorded music sector—estimated at £5.9 million per year—with no benefit to UK creators, copyright owners or the public. This could undermine continued investment in new British artists and their music.

I have listened to what people say and I appreciate that some consider it unfair to provide different treatment to performers based on their nationality. However, as I have said, this is a reflection of the treatment accorded to British performers by other countries. If they were to change their law and provide equivalent protection to British performers, then performers from these countries would automatically enjoy these rights under UK law. The Government would be pleased to see all other countries adopt similarly high standards of protection to the UK in this area, to the mutual benefit of performers from the UK and other countries. We continue to pursue that objective where and when we can. I assure noble Lords that these measures were not targeted at the US or any other country in particular. The SI implements the general principles that deliver the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope we can agree that that ought to be a priority.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope they are in some ways reassured about the Government’s process in making this order, which we believe delivers the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope noble Lords will reflect on it and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be content to withdraw his Motion.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

136: Clause 92, page 117, line 24, leave out from “of” to the end of line 27 and insert “—
(a) a code prepared under section 124A, or(b) an amendment of such a code,that is specified or described in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
New section 124B(11) of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides that the Information Commissioner’s duty to establish a panel to consider draft codes of practice may be disapplied or modified by regulations. This amendment ensures that regulations can make provision in relation to a particular code or amendment or a type of code or amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 141, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would both require the ICO to publish a code of practice for controllers and processors on the processing of personal data by educational technologies in schools.

I say at the outset that I welcome this debate and the contributions of noble Lords on this important issue. As various noble Lords have indicated, civil society organisations have also been contacting the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Education directly to highlight their concerns about this issue. It is a live issue.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Knight, who talked about some of the important and valuable contributions that technology can play in supporting children’s development and guiding teaching interventions. We have to get the balance right, but we understand and appreciate that schoolchildren, parents and schoolteachers must have the confidence to trust the way that services use children’s personal data. That is at the heart of this debate.

There is a lot of work going on, on this issue, some of which noble Lords have referred to. The Department for Education is already exploring ways to engage with the edtech market to reinforce the importance of evidence-based quality products and services in education. On my noble friend Lord Knight’s comments on AI, the Department for Education is developing a framework outlining safety expectations for AI products in education and creating resources for teachers and leaders on safe AI use.

I recognise why noble Lords consider that a dedicated ICO code of practice could help ensure that schools and edtech services are complying with data protection legislation. The Government are open-minded about exploring the merits of this further with the ICO, but it would be premature to include these requirements in the Bill. As I said, there is a great deal of work going on and the findings of the recent ICO audits of edtech service providers will help to inform whether a code of practice is necessary and what services should be in scope.

I hope that we will bear that in mind and engage on it. I would be happy to continue discussions with noble Lords, the ICO and colleagues at the Department for Education, outside of the Bill’s processes, about the possibility of future work on this, particularly as the Secretary of State has powers under the Data Protection Act 2018 to require the ICO to produce new statutory codes, as noble Lords know. Considering the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all speakers in this debate. On the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I entirely agree with the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that it is important to remind ourselves about the benefits that can be achieved by AI in schools. The noble Lord set out a number of those. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, also reminded us that this is not a purely domestic issue; it is international across the board.

However, all noble Lords reminded us of the disbenefits and risks. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, used the word “dystopian”, which was quite interesting, although he gets very close to science fiction sometimes. He said that

“we have good reason to be concerned”,

particularly because of issues such as the national pupil database, where the original purpose may not have been fulfilled and was, in many ways, changed. He gave an example of procurement during Covid, where the choice was either Google or Microsoft—Coke or Pepsi. That is an issue across the board in competition law, as well.

There are real issues here. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, put it very well when he said that there is any number of pieces of guidance for schools but it is important to have a code of conduct. We are all, I think, on the same page in trying to find—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—a fairer and more equitable set of arrangements for children in schools. We need to navigate our way through this issue; of course, organisations such as Defend Digital Me and 5rights are seriously working on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, shall speak very briefly, which will save valuable minutes in which I can order my CyberUp Christmas mug.

Amendments 156A and 156B add to the definition of unauthorised access, so that it includes instances where a person who accesses data in the reasonable knowledge that the controller would not consent if they knew about the access or the reason for the access, and this person is not empowered to access by an enactment. Amendment 156B introduces defences to this new charge. Given the amount of valuable personal data held by controllers, as our lives have moved increasingly online—as many speakers in this debate have vividly brought out—there is absolutely clear merit not just in this idea but in the pace implied, which many noble Lords have called for. There is a need for real urgency here, and I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 156A and 156B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I understand the strength of feeling and the need to provide legal protections for legitimate cybersecurity activities. I agree with the noble Lord that the UK should have the right legislative framework to allow us to tackle the harms posed by cybercriminals. We have heard examples of some of those threats this afternoon.

I reassure the noble Lord that this Government are committed to ensuring that the Computer Misuse Act remains up to date and effective in tackling criminality. We will continue to work with the cybersecurity industry, the National Cyber Security Centre and law enforcement agencies to consider whether there are workable proposals on this. The noble Lord will know that this is a complex and ongoing issue being considered as part of the review of the Computer Misuse Act being carried out by the Home Office. We are considering improved defences by engaging extensively with the cybersecurity industry, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and system owners. However, engagement to date has not produced a consensus on the issue, even within the industry, and that is holding us back at this moment—but we are absolutely determined to move forward with this and to reach a consensus on the way forward.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in the previous debate that the amendments were premature, and here that is certainly the case. The specific amendments that the noble Lord has tabled are premature, because we need a stronger consensus on the way forward, notwithstanding all the good reasons that noble Lords have given for why it is important that we have updated legislation. With these concerns and reasons in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Could the Minister say a few words on some of those points of discourse and non-consensus, to give the Committee some flavour of the type of issues where there is no consensus as well as the extent of the gap between some of those perspectives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that we published our analysis of the consultation responses to the previous Home Office investigation in November 2023, so all those mixed responses are on the record. It was therefore concluded by the Government that further work needed to be done on this. On my noble friend’s report, was there a government response?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes, the Government accepted the recommendations in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, although I have no amendments in this group, I will comment on some of them. I might jump around the order, so please forgive me for that.

Amendment 197 would change Clause 123 so that the Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 12 months after the Act is passed, make regulations requiring regulated services to provide information for the purposes of research into online safety. This is clearly sensible. It would ensure that valuable research into online safety may commence as soon as possible, which would benefit us all, as speakers have made abundantly clear. To that end, Amendment 198D, which would ensure that researcher access is enforceable in the same way as other requirements under the Online Safety Act, would ensure that researchers can access valuable information and carry out their beneficial research.

I am still left with some curiosity on some of these amendments, so I will indicate where I have specific questions to those who have tabled them and hope they will forgive me if I ask to have a word with them between now and Report, which would be very helpful. In that spirit, I turn to Amendment 198B, which would allow the Secretary of State to define the term “independent researcher”. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who tabled the amendment, whether he envisages the Secretary of State taking advice before making such regulations and, if so, from whom and in what mechanism. I recognise that it is a probing amendment, but I would be keen to understand more.

I am also keen to understand further from my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, why, under Amendment 198A, the Secretary of State would not be able to make regulations providing for independent research into the “enforcement of requirements” under these regulations. Again, I look forward to discussing that with them.

I have some concerns about Amendment 198, which would require service providers to give information pertaining to age, stage of development, gender, race, ethnicity, disability and sexuality to researchers. I understand the importance of this but my concern is that it would require the disclosure of special category data to those researchers. I express reservations, especially if the data pertains to children. Do we have the right safeguards in place to address the obviously heightened risks here?

Additionally, I have some concerns about the provisions suggested in Amendment 198E. Should we allow researchers from outside the United Kingdom to require access to information from regulated service providers? Could this result in data being transferred into jurisdictions where there are less stringent data protection laws?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have welcomed the provisions in the Bill. I very much appreciate that we have taken on board the concerns that were raised in the debates on the previous legislation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments.

I will speak first to Amendment 197, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would compel the Secretary of State to create a framework and to do so within 12 months of passage. I understand and share her desire to ensure that a framework allowing researchers access is installed and done promptly. This is precisely why we brought forward this provision. I reassure her that the department will consult on the framework as soon as possible after the publication of Ofcom’s report.

Turning to Amendments 198 and 198B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, respectively, Clause 123 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations relating to researchers’ access to data. I can reassure noble Lords that it does not limit the regulations to the non-exhaustive list of examples provided. I agree that fair and proportionate criteria for who is considered a researcher are critical to the success of the future framework. I reassure noble Lords that in the provision as currently written the Secretary of State can include in the design of the framework the specific requirements that a person must meet to be considered a researcher.

Turning to Amendments 198A and 198D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, while I am sympathetic to his desire to provide a future framework with the robust enforcement powers of the OSA, I assure him that as the provision is written, the Secretary of State can already use the existing enforcement powers of the OSA to support a future framework. Furthermore, should the evidence suggest that additional or different measures would be more effective and appropriate, this provision allows the Secretary of State the flexibility to introduce them.

Turning next to Amendments 198C and 198E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I understand the spirit of these amendments and note the importance of this issue, given the global nature of the online world. It is entirely reasonable to allow researchers who are not based in the UK to utilise our researcher access framework, as long as the subject of their research is the experience of UK users online. I reassure him that the provisions as drafted already allow the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting non-UK-based researchers to use the framework where appropriate. We plan to use the evidence gathered through our own means and through Ofcom’s report to set out who will be eligible to use the framework in the secondary legislation.

Finally, turning to Amendment 198F, I am aware of the concern that researchers have encountered blockages to conducting research and I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment. We must ensure that researchers can use the future framework without fear of legal action or other consequences. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked me a specific question about legal exemptions and I will write to her to make that answer much clearer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are considering the specific issues that the noble Lord raises. For these reasons, I ask that the amendments not be pressed while the Government consider these issues further and I am of course happy to engage with noble Lords in the meantime.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who spoke. I do not think I heard an answer to the may/must issue and I think I need to say that just relying on Ofcom’s report to set the framework for the regime is not adequate, for two reasons. First, it is no news to the Committee that there is a considerable amount of disquiet about how the Online Safety Act has been reinterpreted without Parliament’s intention. During the passage of this Bill, we are trying to be really clear—we will win some and we will lose some—on the face of the Bill what Parliament’s intention is, so that the regulator really does what we agree, because that subject is currently quite contentious.

This is a new area and a lot of the issues that the Minister and, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, raised are here to be sorted out to make sure that we understand collectively what it will look like. Having said that, I would like the Government to have heard that we do not wish to rest on the actions of whistleblowers but we will be increasingly forced to do so if we do not have a good regime. We must understand the capacity of this sector to go to court. We are in court everywhere, all over the world; the sector has deep pockets.

Finally, I welcome the nitpicking of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. Long may he nitpick. We will make sure that he is content before Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I was involved in an ethics committee that looked at genomics and cancer research some years ago, and this is very important. If research could be done on different genomic and racial types, it could be used against us adversely at some point. So there is a lot of sense in this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for moving this amendment, which raises this important question about our genomics databases, and for the disturbing examples that he has drawn to our attention. He is right that the opportunities from harnessing genomic data come with very real risks. This is why the Government have continued the important work of the UK Biological Security Strategy of 2023, including by conducting a full risk assessment and providing updated guidance to reduce the risks from the misuse of sensitive data. We plan to brief the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on the findings of the risk assessment in the new year. Following that, I look forward to engaging with the noble Viscount on its outcome and on how we intend to take these issues forward. As he says, this is a vital issue, but in the meantime I hope he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I very much accept her offer of engagement. I will make a few further brief comments about the importance of this amendment, as we go forward. I hope that other noble Lords will consider it carefully before Report.

I will set out a few reasons why I believe this amendment can benefit both the Bill and this country. The first is its scope. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner to assess data security risks across the entirety of the genomic sector, covering consumers, businesses, citizens and researchers who may be partnering with state-linked genomics companies.

The second reason is urgency. DNA is regularly described as the “new gold” and it represents our most permanent identifier, revealing physical and mental characteristics, family medical history and susceptibility to diseases. Once it has been accessed, the damage from potential misuse cannot be researched, and this places a premium on proactively scrutinising the potential risks to this data.

Thirdly, there are opportunities for global leadership. This amendment offers the UK an opportunity to take a world-leading role and become the first European country to take authoritative action to scrutinise data vulnerabilities in this area of critical technology. Scrutinising risks to UK genomic data security also provides a foundation to foster domestic genomics companies and solutions.

Fourthly, this amendment would align the UK with key security partners, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Bethell mentioned, the United States, which has already blacklisted certain genomics companies linked to China and taken steps to protect American citizens’ DNA from potential misuse.

The fifth and final reason is protection of citizens and consumers. This amendment would provide greater guidance and transparency to citizens and consumers whose DNA data is exposed to entities linked to systemic competitors. With all of that said, I thank noble Lords for their consideration and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, the current law does not sufficiently protect children from AI-driven CSAM because it is simply such a fast-moving issue. It is a sobering thought that, of all the many wonderful developments of AI that many of us have been predicting and speculating on for so long, CSAM is really driving the technology forward. What a depressing reflection that is.

Overall, AI is developing at an extraordinarily rapid pace and has come with a number of concerning consequences that are not all yet fully understood. However, it is understood that child sexual abuse is completely unacceptable in any and all contexts, and it is right that our law should be updated to reflect the dangers that have increased alongside AI development.

Amendment 203 seeks to create a specific offence for using personal data or digital information to create or facilitate the creation of computer-generated child sexual abuse material. Although legislation is in place to address possessing or distributing such horrendous material, we must prioritise the safety of children in this country and take the law a step further to prevent its creation. Our children must be kept safe and, subject to one reservation, which I will come to in a second, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to further protect them.

That reservation comes in proposed new subsection 1(c), which includes in the offence the act of collating files that, when combined, enable the creation of sexual abuse material. This is too broad. A great deal of the collation of such material can be conducted by innocent people using innocent materials that are then corrupted or given more poisonous aspects by further training, fine-tuning or combination with other materials by more malign actors. I hope there is a way we can refine this proposed new paragraph on that basis.

Unfortunately, adults can also be the targets of individuals who use AI to digitally generate non-consensual explicit images or audio files of an individual, using their likeness and personal data. I am really pleased that my noble friend Lady Owen tabled Amendments 211G and 211H to create offences for these unacceptable, cruel acts. I support these amendments unambiguously.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her Amendment 203. It goes without saying that the Government treat all child sexual abuse material with the utmost seriousness. I can therefore confirm to her and the Committee that the Government will bring forward legislative measures to address the issue in this Session and that the Home Office will make an announcement on this early in the new year.

On Amendments 211G and 211H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, the Government share concerns that more needs to be done to protect women from deepfake image abuse. This is why the Government committed in their manifesto to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults. I reassure the noble Baroness and the whole Committee that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment in this Session. The Government are fully committed to protecting the victims of tech-enabled sexual abuse. Tackling intimate audio would be a new area of law, but we continue to keep that legislation under review.

I also say to the noble Baroness that there is already a process under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the court to deprive a convicted offender of property, including images that have been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating any criminal offence. As well as images, that includes computers and mobile phones that the offender either used to commit intimate image offences or intended to use for that purpose in future. For those reasons and the reassurances I have given today, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling her amendment. We understand its great intentions, which we believe are to prevent another scandal similar to that of Horizon and to protect innocent people from having to endure what thousands of postmasters have undergone and suffered.

However, while this amendment would make it easier to challenge evidence derived from, or produced by, a computer or computer system, we are concerned that, should it become law, this amendment could be misused by defendants to challenge good evidence. Our fear is that, in determining the reliability of such evidence, we may create a battle of the expert witnesses. This will not only substantially slow down trials but result in higher costs. Litigation is already expensive, and we would aim not to introduce additional costs to an already costly process unless absolutely necessary.

From our perspective, the underlying problem in the Horizon scandal was not that computer systems were critically wrong or that people were wrong, but that the two in combination drove the terrible outcomes that we have unfortunately seen. For many industries, regulations require firms to conduct formal systems validation, with serious repercussions and penalties should companies fail to do so. It seems to us that the disciplines of systems validation, if required for other industries, would be both a powerful protection and considerably less disruptive than potentially far-reaching changes to the law.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for Amendment 207 and for raising this important topic. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords are right that this issue goes far wider than Horizon. We could debate what went wrong with Horizon, but the issues before us today are much wider than that.

The Government are agreed that we must prevent future miscarriages of justice. We fully understand the intention behind the amendment and the significance of the issue. We are actively considering this matter and will announce next steps in the new year. I reassure noble Lords that we are on the case with this issue.

In the meantime, as this amendment brings into scope evidence presented in every type of court proceeding and would have a detrimental effect on the courts and prosecution—potentially leading to unnecessary delays and, more importantly, further distress to victims—I must ask the noble Baroness whether she is content to withdraw it at this stage. I ask that on the basis that this is an ongoing discussion that we are happy to have with her.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the Minister, in particular for understanding that this goes way beyond Horizon. I would be very interested to be involved in those conversations, not because I have the great truth but because I have access to people with the great truth on this issue. In the conversations I have had, there has been so much pushing back. A bit like with our previous group, it would have been better to have been in the conversation before the consultation was announced than after. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving this amendment. As she rightly identified, the UK has a number of publicly held data assets, many of which contain extremely valuable information. This data—I flag, by way of an example, NHS data specifically—could be extremely valuable to certain organisations, such as pharmaceutical companies.

We are drawn to the idea of licensing such data—indeed, we believe that we could charge an extremely good price—but we have a number of concerns. Most notably, what additional safeguards would be required, given its sensitivity? What would be the limits and extent of the licensing agreement? Would this status close off other routes to monetising the data? Would other public sector bodies be able to use the data for free? Can this not already be done without the amendment?

Although His Majesty’s Official Opposition of course recognise the wish to ensure that the UK taxpayer gets a fair return on our information assets held by public bodies and arm’s-length organisations, and we certainly agree that we need to look at licensing, we are not yet sure that this amendment is either necessary or sufficient. We once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving it. We look forward to hearing both her and the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her amendment. I agree with her that the public sector has a wealth of data assets that could be used to help our society achieve our missions and contribute to economic growth.

As well as my previous comments on the national data library, the Government’s recent Green Paper, Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy, makes it clear that we consider data access part of the modern business environment, so improving data access is integral to the UK’s approach to growth. However, we also recognise the value of our data assets as part of this approach. At the same time, it is critical that we use our data assets in a trustworthy and ethical way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, so we must tackle these issues carefully.

This is an active area of policy development for the Government, and we need to get it right. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, she started and provoked a debate that will, I hope, carry on; we would be happy to engage in that debate going forward.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank all speakers, in particular my noble friend Lord Tarassenko for his perspective. I am very happy to discuss this matter and let the Official Opposition know that this is a route to something more substantive to which they can agree. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling Amendment 221B and his other amendments in this group, which are on a range of varied and important issues. Given the hour, I hope he will be content if I promise to write to him on each of these issues and in the meantime, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who participated: I will not go through them by name. I thank the Minister for her response and would very much welcome a letter. I am happy to meet her on all these subjects but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling Amendment 211F and all noble Lords for their brief contributions to this group.

Amendment 211F ensures that all the biodiversity data collected by or in connection with government is collected in local environment records centres to ensure that records are as good as possible. That data is then used by or in connection with government, so it is put to the best possible use.

The importance of sufficient and high-quality record collection cannot and must not be understated. With this in mind, His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the sentiment of the amendment in my noble friend’s name. These Benches will always champion matters related to biodiversity and nature recovery. In fact, many of my noble friends have raised concerns about biodiversity in Committee debates in your Lordships’ House on the Crown Estate Bill, the Water (Special Measures) Bill and the Great British Energy Bill. Indeed, they have tabled amendments that ensure that matters related to biodiversity appear at the forefront of draft legislation.

With that in mind, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing provisions, via Amendment 211F, which would require any planning application involving biodiversity net gain to include a data search report from the relevant local environmental records centre. I trust that the Minister has listened to the concerns raised collaboratively in the debate on this brief group. We must recognise the importance of good data collection and ensure that such data is used in the best possible way.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his Amendment 211F. I absolutely agree that local environmental records centres provide an important service. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s digital planning programme is developing data standards and tools to increase the availability, accessibility and usability of planning data. This will transform people’s experience of planning and housing, including through local environmental records centres. On that basis, I must ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that extensive answer from the Minister. If I have anything that I hope that she might add, I will write to her afterwards.

My heart is always in the cause of making sure that the Government get their business done on time every time, and that we finish Committee stages when they ask, as doubtless they will discover with some of the other Bills they have in this Session. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

213: Clause 135, page 168, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The power conferred by section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modification or adaptation).(5B) The power conferred by section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modifications). (5C) The power conferred by section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modifications).”Member's explanatory statement
The immigration legislation amended by Clause 55 may be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. This amendment provides that the amendments made by Clause 55 may be extended to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man.