I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Sir James.

I am certainly not Sir James—just Mr Gray, unless you know something I don’t.

I am sorry, Mr Gray. I have started off well, haven’t I?

The regulations establish a responsible actors scheme for developers under sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022, focused on the remediation by developers of historical fire safety defects in residential buildings that they have developed in England. Developers that are eligible for the scheme but choose not to join, and developers that do join the scheme but then renege on their membership commitments, will be prohibited from carrying out major development or obtaining building control approvals for development that has taken place.

Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy it became evident that thousands of residential buildings over 11 metres had serious fire safety defects. That puts resident safety at risk while leaving many leaseholders facing significant remediation costs. The responsible actors scheme is one part of the Government’s wider response to the issues that came to light following Grenfell. In addition, we are protecting residents by spending £5 billion of taxpayer subsidy on remediating unsafe cladding on 18 metre-plus buildings, securing industry contributions to remediation by introducing a building safety levy and implementing statutory leaseholder protections against unfair costs of remediation, and we have created new legal avenues of redress for affected parties.

The responsible actors scheme focuses on major private sector developers that sit at the top of the supply chain and have overall responsibility for their developments. The Government engaged with major developers through a remediation pledge and then a legally binding developer remediation contract, which was announced earlier this year. I welcome the action that has been taken by the 49 developers that have now signed that contract. Those include the top 10 private sector UK house builders.

The regulations set out three descriptions of persons who are eligible to join the scheme. Developers based anywhere may be eligible for the scheme if they have developed relevant buildings in England. First, major house builders are eligible where their principal business has been residential property development, they were responsible for the development or refurbishment of one or more 11 metre-plus residential buildings in England in the 30 years ending 4 April 2022, and they meet the profits condition set out in the regulations.

Secondly, developers are eligible where they meet the profits condition and where they were responsible for the development or refurbishment of at least two buildings that we know are defective because the buildings have been assessed as eligible for a relevant Government remediation fund.

Can the Minister tell us what percentage of the total number of buildings that need remediation will be covered by the 49 businesses that have already signed up to the scheme? I presume the Government have a rough idea.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It is a difficult question to answer, but I will try to articulate a response as best I can.

We have assessed that in excess of 1,000 buildings will be remediated through the developer contract. That is in excess of £2 billion of remediation that is required, and that will be apportioned to the developers that originally caused the issues. The challenge with identifying an absolute denominator in order to get to the percentage is that until we get further into the third scheme that we are launching, for the 11 to 18 metre cohort—a pilot was launched at the end of last year and hopefully will be expanded in the months ahead—it is difficult to quantify exactly how many thousand buildings may have remediation issues. Until we have that number and add it to all the buildings that we know about that are over 18 metres, it is difficult to have an absolute denominator from which a percentage can be derived.

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and I understand the explanation. Draft regulation 21(2)(a) talks about “fire safety defects”. The explanatory memorandum, however, refers to “life-critical fire safety defects”. Are those one and the same thing? However they are defined, do they extend beyond dangerous cladding to missing firebreaks and flammable insulation?

The regulations seek to mirror the provisions in the developer contract that each individual developer has signed, and that is based on the PAS 9980 assessment, which concerns the proportionate impact and what remediation is necessary to ensure that the risks are tolerable, primarily on external systems. Internal systems, such as firebreaks, unless they are attached to the external parts—there is often a difficulty in separating the two out—will be undertaken through appropriate assessments and protocols that are separate from PAS 9980.

I have discussed two of the eligibility provisions; thirdly, there is a voluntary eligibility provision. That allows other persons to join where they were responsible for the development or refurbishment of a building that would require remediation under the developer remediation contract.

The profits condition is focused on typical operating profits, averaged across the three years from 2017 to 2019, which were not impacted by the covid pandemic. Both the profits condition and the other aspects of the eligibility provisions make appropriate provision for the complex company group structures that some developers use. The regulations are also clear that registered providers of social housing are not eligible for the scheme. They will not be invited or permitted to join.

The Minister may not know that I tabled an amendment to the Building Safety Bill in relation to payment practice. In her investigation of Grenfell, Dame Judith Hackitt found a relationship between poor payment practice and poor building safety. Will the regulations take into account the importance of payment practice and its relationship to good building safety?

We are addressing the regulations for the responsible actors scheme, which my broader points have primarily reflected. If it would help the hon. Lady, I am happy to talk about payment practice separately.

The core conditions of membership of the scheme are that developers commit to identifying and remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres in height that they developed or refurbished in England in the 30 years ending on 4 April 2022 and to reimburse taxpayers for Government-funded remediation of such buildings if it has already occurred. To demonstrate its commitment, an eligible developer must enter into a self-remediation contract—that is, a contract containing the terms of the developer contract, which was published in March this year. The membership conditions require that members give effect to their remediation and reimbursement commitments in accordance with its terms.

I turn to the application provisions. The Committee may be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to two technical aspects of the drafting of the regulations, including one relating to the scheme application provisions. I want to address those aspects before we consider the provisions. I am grateful to the Joint Committee for its time and scrutiny and for its report, which the Government have carefully considered. We have corresponded with the Joint Committee and provided a memorandum that sets out our position, which is printed as an appendix to the Joint Committee’s report. I wish to take the opportunity to reaffirm our overall position on the issues raised, as explained in the memorandum.

First, on the application provisions, we consider it to be clear in context that, where the Secretary of State identifies that a person is likely to be eligible for the scheme, they will be invited to join the scheme, but that registered providers of social housing will not be invited to join because they are not eligible under regulation 6, as per my previous comments. In the light of the Joint Committee’s report, we will monitor implementation carefully and will consider bringing forward amending regulations in the event that the regulations give rise to misunderstanding in practice. The Government will also issue guidance on aspects of the scheme. The issue of developer remediation of unsafe buildings is urgent, however, and I will be seeking the approval of the House for these regulations.

The regulations set out the time periods to join the scheme and give developers an opportunity to make representations if they believe they are not eligible for the scheme. They also set out how developers can join the scheme in other circumstances. Membership of the scheme may be revoked for breach of membership conditions, or ended without fault where a member has substantially satisfied their obligations. Members will have the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State before their membership is revoked.

Should an eligible developer decide not to join the scheme by the end of the application period, or should their membership be revoked for failing to comply with the scheme’s conditions, they will, in accordance with the regulations, be prohibited from carrying out major development or obtaining building control approvals. At that point, the developer and known persons controlled by the developer will be notified and then added to a published prohibitions list, which will be used by local authorities for enforcement. Only a person named on the prohibitions list will be subject to the prohibitions.

The regulations also apply the prohibitions to persons controlled by the developer, to make sure that developers cannot easily avoid prohibitions by continuing their development business through other entities that they control. Such persons will be subject to a planning prohibition that prevents them from carrying out major development in England, except where planning permission was received before the regulations came into effect. Development of land carried out by a prohibited developer in breach of a prohibition will constitute a breach of planning control.

The regulations include provision that developers must notify local planning authorities about their status as a prohibited person or when prohibitions are lifted. The JCSI has reported on the absence of a specific sanction for failure to give notice under these provisions. I want to reassure the Committee that the regulations are effective without such a sanction. The primary mechanism for identifying prohibited persons will be the prohibitions list published by the Secretary of State, so local planning authorities will have access to all the information they need, even if a developer fails to notify them. In addition, any developer who engages in development contrary to a prohibition will be subject to sanctions through planning enforcement.

The regulations also establish a building control prohibition, which will prevent prohibited persons from gaining initial and final building control approval in respect of any building work that requires such approval.

The prohibitions will have limited exceptions, the purpose of which is to mitigate the potential impact on third parties, such as off-plan buyers, the wider public and certain entities that are not in the building industry. The building control prohibition is subject to exceptions that seek to protect third-party purchasers of property from a prohibited developer, including a specific exception to assist those whose deposits could be at risk if a prohibition came into effect after they had exchanged contracts. There are also exceptions to ensure that emergency repairs and other repairs to any occupied building that are necessary for the safety of residents can proceed.

Both prohibitions are subject to exceptions to exclude critical national infrastructure projects and to permit certain entities in developers’ corporate groups that are not in the building industry to have prohibitions disapplied to them where that would not frustrate the purpose of the scheme.

I know that the Committee will also be concerned about other industry actors, particularly construction products manufacturers. It is unacceptable that cladding and insulation manufacturers have not yet acknowledged their responsibility for the legacy of unsafe buildings. Most recently the Secretary of State has written to three industry participants—Kingspan, Arconic and Saint-Gobain—and their institutional shareholders to make it clear that those manufacturers must contribute to the cost of remediation or they may face consequences. The Government will consider all options to ensure that construction products manufacturers contribute their share.

The regulations will launch an important scheme for developers to remediate unsafe buildings. Given the urgency of the issue, we are introducing these regulations at speed for a scheme focused on larger developers. We propose to extend the scheme over time to cover all developers that have built defective buildings over 11 metres and should be paying to fix them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gray —it is only a matter of time until you are elevated beyond your present status.

I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation that he provided. The Opposition welcome this important instrument. Labour has always maintained not only that all blameless leaseholders should be protected from the costs of fixing historical cladding and non-cladding defects, irrespective of circumstance, but that those industry actors who have profited over recent decades from the construction or refurbishment of unsafe buildings —developers or others, such as product manufacturers—must contribute to the vast remediation programme that is now required to ensure that all defective buildings across the country are made safe.

While we very much share the Government’s objective that developers pay an appropriate share of remediation costs, we have always been at pains to highlight that the developer remediation contract is not a panacea for the building safety crisis. According to the Department’s own estimates, cited by the Secretary of State in the House on 20 February this year, the contract will apply to approximately 1,500 unsafe buildings. Given that the Department also estimates that there are more than 3,500 unsafe high-rise buildings and anywhere between 6,220 and 8,890 unsafe mid-rise buildings, it is abundantly clear that the contract will deal with only a fraction of the total remediation challenge.

On previous occasions in the House, the Minister has taken issue with that assertion, but unless he wants to quibble about the definition of what constitutes a fraction, or has revised estimates that suggest that the number of buildings within scope of the contract is significantly higher, any reasonable person would conclude that the figures that I have just quoted more than bear that out. All of that is to say that even if the contract should lead to the full remediation of every building to which it applies, other solutions will still be required for the many thousands of buildings across the country that lie outside its scope.

While it may not be a panacea for the building safety crisis, the developer remediation contract is nevertheless essential, and we welcomed it, albeit with caveats, when it was published. The responsible actors scheme, which today’s instrument establishes, is a necessary corollary to that contract, both as a means to compel developers to make the necessary remediation commitments and honour them, and to provide, as the explanatory memorandum rightly makes clear, for a level playing field so that developers that make the required commitments do not find themselves at a disadvantage relative to their industry competitors.

The Opposition have no objection whatsoever to the principle of establishing a responsible actors scheme, and we firmly believe that developers that either should join the scheme but do not, or do join the scheme but then fail to comply with its conditions and thus have their membership revoked, should face the resulting planning and building control prohibitions provided for by the instrument. The issues that I will raise are therefore not concerned with the principle of the RAS, but instead relate to the design of the scheme and its operation.

I intend to spend a little time setting out our concerns and questions. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for doing so, but we feel that it is important that the Committee considers the instrument carefully, rather than subjecting it to only the lightest of scrutiny on the basis that the principle at issue is uncontested. We take that view not only because the instrument is both extensive and fiendishly complex, but because, as hon. Members who were actively engaged in the scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, as I was, will recall, this place never debated sections 126 to 129, from which the instrument flows, as they were incorporated in the other place without dissent. It is therefore crucial that the Committee scrutinises the instrument exhaustively, to satisfy ourselves that the scheme that is being established will function effectively.

We have two broad concerns about the instrument, the first of which relates to eligibility for the responsible actors scheme that it establishes. There is still considerable confusion about eligibility, despite the Minister’s earlier explanation. The Opposition argue that it is crucial that not only is the membership of the scheme publicly available, but its potential size and composition is well known and well understood. Put simply, both the industry and those households living in unsafe buildings that require remediation should be able to easily ascertain not only which developers are members of the scheme at any given point, but which may well be obliged or persuaded to join it in the future.

We know that all residential property developers that have signed the developer remediation contract, or who the Department has made it clear are expected to do so, will be eligible for the scheme, yet the Government have been less than entirely transparent about precisely which developers fall within each category. We have attempted to secure answers through oral and written questions, but the Department will not tell us which house builders and mixed-use developers were initially asked to sign the developer remediation contract on 30 January.

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the statutory instrument states that by the summer of 2022, 49 developers had made a public pledge to fix life-critical fire safety defects in buildings over 11 metres in height that they had developed or refurbished. It also states that 50 developers were asked to sign the developer remediation contract and that 46 have done so. But as of this morning, the Department’s website states that 49 developers have signed the contract—that is the figure the Minister gave—and that four signed it but were subsequently found not to have developed buildings that are within its scope, and three have not signed. There is a slight discrepancy that the Government need to explain, not least so that leaseholders living in unsafe buildings have clarity as to whether their original developer has signed the contract or has not signed it but is expected to do so by the Department.

The explanatory memorandum also makes it clear that, as the Minister said, the Government expect the responsible actors scheme to expand over time to cover other developers that developed or refurbished defective buildings over 11 metres in height— presumably, beyond those that have already signed the contract or are publicly named as being expected to do so. Again, it is not immediately apparent who those future eligible developers might be, given that one would have expected the Department to have already written to all developers that developed or refurbished defective buildings over 11 metres in height and that meet the relevant profits threshold, asking them to sign the contract. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide the Committee with some clarity as to why some developers that may ultimately be required to adopt a self-remediation approach and join the scheme have not already been asked to sign the developer remediation contract. For example, is it the Government’s intention to bring defective buildings under 11 metres in height into the scope of the contract and the scheme in the future?

Leaving aside the question of why some developers that may be brought within the scope of the RAS in the future have not already been asked to sign the contract, an examination of the provisions in the regulations makes it clear that there are several ways—the Minister alluded to them—in which the Government believe that developers may ultimately come within the remit of the scheme in the future. However, each begs questions, which I hope the Minister can answer.

Regulation 8 makes it clear that large developers that developed or refurbished defective buildings that have been assessed as eligible for a relevant Government cladding remediation scheme may be brought within the remit of the RAS in the future. Is it therefore the Government’s intention that all developers that are responsible for the development or refurbishment of a defective building or buildings over 11 metres in height—I think I heard the Minister perhaps mention two buildings as the threshold—and which have seen those buildings deemed eligible for funding from the private or social sector aluminium composite material cladding remediation fund or the building safety fund will ultimately be expected to join the RAS? If not, which ones will be expected to join, and which are the criteria on which they will be distinguished from those not expected to ultimately join?

A related issue is that there is currently no publicly available list of all those buildings that have been deemed eligible for public money from one of the aforementioned Government cladding remediation schemes. Is it the Government’s intention to publish in the near future a list to that effect, or is it the intention that new members that join the RAS because an unsafe building for which they are responsible has qualified for a Government cladding remediation scheme will not be publicly identified on that basis?

Regulation 9 provides another means for developers to join the scheme—namely, on a voluntary basis. However, it is not at all clear to Opposition Members what on earth the incentive to do so might be. Can the Minister explain why the Government believe that any developer would voluntarily join the RAS, so that we can understand the Government’s logic in respect of that route of entry?

The issue of voluntary membership also touches on the judgment of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its 39th report of this Session, that regulation 30 is defectively drafted. The Joint Committee flagged that concern with the House on the basis that the regulation as drafted provides no mechanism for enforcing compliance with the notification requirements imposed on persons who are not members of the scheme but are eligible to join it. Again, we are looking for an explanation as to why any developer, either for reasons of benefit to it or as a result of the enforcement powers made available to various public bodies, would want to voluntarily join the RAS.

Finally, any developer deemed eligible for the RAS, either at the point of its inception or in the future, is expected to meet a profit condition. Regulations 7, 10 and 11 make it clear that the condition is, in essence, an average of £10 million in annual profit in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Will the Minister explain why the Department ultimately decided on that £10 million annual profit threshold, and whether it has carried out any analysis of how many developers that developed or refurbished defective buildings of over 11 metres in height have annual profits in the years in question below the designated threshold?

Let me turn to our second broad issue of concern, which relates to conditions of the scheme. Regulations 21 through 23 make it clear that these conditions are, in essence, the meeting in full of the obligations set out in the developer remediation contract. As such, the scheme that the instrument establishes will suffer from the deficiencies of the contract published by the Department on 16 March 2023. Chief among those deficiencies is the fact that the definition of “relevant defect” in the contract is different from the definition used in the Building Safety Act 2022 to define life-critical fire safety defects.

In a response dated 20 February 2023 to a written question I had tabled, the Minister made it clear that the definitions used in the contract and the Act were different because they were “drafted for different purposes”, with the purpose of the definition used in the contract being to address life-critical fire safety defects that arise from the original design, construction or refurbishment of a given building. Yet we have never had an explanation from the Government as to why the different definitions will not inevitably lead to a two-tier remediation system in which buildings covered by the contract remediate defects in accordance with it, while those outside its scope are forced to remediate to the broader and more stringent definition under the Act—namely, any defect that leads to the spread of fire or the risk of collapse.

We have also had no corresponding assurance from Ministers that leaseholders in buildings covered by the contract will not be exposed to enforcement action under the Act subsequent to the remediation of life-critical fire defects as defined in the contract. The Minister needs to provide an explanation and assurance in that regard this afternoon, because leaseholders across the country certainly fear that there is a risk posed by the different definitions that the Government have alighted on in the contract and the Act respectively, given that it is the Act that ultimately sets the legal standard for remediation of existing buildings.

The Minister also needs to explain why the definition of “relevant building” as set out in regulation 3 is different from the definition used in the Act. The Act makes it clear that relevant buildings are any that are over 11 metres in height or that contain five storeys. Regulation 3 defines relevant buildings only as those over 11 metres in height. One would presume that very few buildings will slip through the net as a result of the discrepancy, but there is presumably a chance that some might, otherwise why did the Act make satisfaction of either the five-storey or the 11-metre threshold, rather than both, a gateway to qualifying as a relevant building? If there is a chance that even a handful of buildings will slip between the net, the discrepancy needs to be addressed, because in a scenario where a building did fall between the two definitions, leaseholders of that building would not have the protection of the contract and could be forced to pay for the costs of remediation works themselves.

Lastly, I would be grateful if the Minister would provide the Committee with assurances regarding the provisions of the developer remediation contract and the scheme that relate to target dates by which participant developers are required to identify and assess buildings and thereafter undertake any works to fix life-critical fire safety defects as defined by that contract. The final contract stipulated that these must be carried out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

How do the Government intend to ensure that they are, particularly given that there is little indication—at least from my postbag—that the signing of the developer remediation contract earlier this year has accelerated assessments and remediation works on those buildings to which it applies.

Although we very much welcome this instrument and the objective that underpins the establishment of the scheme it gives effect to, there are a range of important questions that the Government need to provide answers to if we—and, more importantly, all those currently trapped in unsafe buildings within the scope of the contract and the scheme—are to have confidence that it will operate effectively in practice and in a manner that is fully transparent. I have set out a number of those questions this afternoon and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on his detailed exposition. The scheme, as my hon. Friend made clear, is a good thing, and I support it, because the Government have finally realised that they have some muscle they could apply to developers, rather than just sitting back and saying, “They won’t do anything, and there’s not much that we can do in response.” I therefore welcome the change, because it shows the Government’s willingness to draw on the levers that the state can exercise and to say, “If you don’t do this, certain very unpleasant consequences are going to follow.”

I have three brief points. First, I know of one case where the building had gone quite a long way down the route of getting money from the building safety fund—the plans were ready and so on—and then the developer involved finally signed on the dotted line, but the leaseholders’ concern was whether the developer would say, “I had better come in and have look” and poke and prod, and that that will extend the time before remediation, for which the leaseholders have been waiting desperately for a long time. It would be helpful to get an assurance from the Minister that that will not be the consequence of developers finally living up to their responsibilities. Anything that Ministers can do to ensure that developers crack on would be greatly appreciated.

Secondly, on the numbers, I listened carefully to what the Minister said in reply to my intervention, but I note that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee called in a report last year for the publication of

“all available data on the number of buildings of all heights with historic building safety defects—cladding and non-cladding”.

The Government said something very interesting in their reply to the Select Committee, on which I want to probe the Minister. They said:

“We are committed to publishing information in data releases as soon as it is appropriate to do so.”

“Appropriate” is a very odd word to use. In what circumstances would it be inappropriate to publish the data, except in cases in which the Government do not know the answer to the question? If the Government do not know, then all these years on after Grenfell they ought to ensure that they do know the answer, so that it can be published. That relates not just to ACM cladding, where the focus was in the first instance because Grenfell was covered in ACM, but to all other buildings.

I take it from what the Minister said that life-critical fire safety detects are the same as “fire safety defects”, as expressed in the regulations, and he referred me to the PAS 9980 process.

Finally, I think the Minister recently received a dossier from the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign relating to sub-11 metre blocks. He said in the House when the 2022 Act was being debated that the Government will look at such things on a case-by-case basis, and he expressed the Government’s wish to take things in stages. In the end, however, people in some blocks have not been able to sell because no EWS1 form is available, with some lenders are saying, “No EWS1, no mortgage, no sale.” The Government have tried to argue that there is no systemic problem with sub-11 metre blocks, but some mortgage lenders appear to be taking a different view. If that is the case in relation to sub-11 metre buildings, what is the position on buildings above 11 metres where mortgage lenders may be saying the same thing?

The Minister talked about the position depending on whether—I think he said this—the cladding is directly connected to missing firebreaks. However, if a mortgage lender says, “Without an EWS1, because there are missing firebreaks and flammable insulation in the building, we are not going to lend, and you are not going to be able to sell,” it seems that one of the principal reasons for the Government acting in this way, which I welcome, means that they will not solve the problem facing leaseholders. In the end, their test of whether the building is safe is, “Does anybody else want to buy my flat?” If people will not buy their flat because there is no EWS1 form, because someone else thinks there is still a risk, the distinction between cladding problems and other problems really does not wash.

I am grateful for the comments by right hon. and hon. Members; in the constructive spirit in which they were made, let me work through the individual points raised.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made the point about expansiveness. I understand his point about the developer contract, but we have taken substantial steps forward in recent months, as he kindly acknowledged in his speech. We are talking about more than 1,000 properties and more than £2 billion of remediation. That is a substantial contribution to something on which we all accept significant progress needs to be made, as it is being. We have been clear that we will seek to extend that over time, and we will make further announcements in the coming months.

On eligibility, as the hon. Gentleman knows we have published on gov.uk a list of all the developers that have agreed to sign the developer contract. That list is updated regularly—an additional company was added in the past few days—and we have also published on gov.uk ancillary points about the companies that were invited to join and either have subsequently chosen not to or it has been agreed that they will not join. I can confirm that we will publish a list of the companies that have been invited to join the RAS and of those that join the scheme. We are also clear that the scheme will be extended over time.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about voluntary eligibility was strong and important. The relevant provision is to try to make sure that we cover all the bases. I accept that this is probably a niche element of the discussion, but from my conversations with officials prior to this Committee I know that an example of where that could be the case is when two developers with profits underneath the current thresholds decide, for either commercial reasons or other reasons, to merge and thereby come within the scope of the scheme and choose voluntarily, in advance of being invited by the Government, to make it clear that they would seek to join to remove any consideration as part of whatever commercial scheme they are involved in. I am not saying that that is particularly likely to happen, and it is not necessarily the only example, but that is the kind of specific, niche circumstance that we are trying to address.

The hon. Gentleman talked about conditions and definitions, and I hope that I made some clear points about that in my speech. In essence, assessments can be made for externals in two ways: there is the historic consolidated advice note, which is still used by a substantial number of buildings, and then there is the PAS 9880 route through the fire risk assessment documentation. Ultimately, one of those options needs to be utilised so that people can assess whether the building has a remediation issue, and out of that flows a set of actions that are denoted in the fire risk appraisal of external wall, or elsewhere.

The Minister’s point raises an interesting question: if the PAS 9880 methodology has replaced the consolidated advice note, as it has, is it not incumbent on the Government to revise the Building Safety Act so that that methodology runs through the Act and the two definitions of “defect” are aligned?

We are not proposing to change primary legislation at this stage. We believe that the situation works and aligns in a way that allows both the previous processes for the CAN to work and for the PAS 9980 process also to be effective. We can see that that is happening on properties up and down the land, and each month more properties are starting remediation and, just as importantly, concluding remediation.

On the target date, I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of clarity. I hope he will accept, in the spirit in which it is intended, my saying that it is very difficult to set absolute dates for when work on individual buildings must be concluded, because that is a function of many different variables, including commerciality, the signing of contracts, individual actors being able to turn things around quickly and so on. The reality is that the Government want that to happen as soon as is practical, hence the wording that has been put in place, and we will monitor progress extensively. I am doing that regularly. Over the past few months I have joined meetings of Homes England and of the Greater London Authority, and I have also been out on visits.

Our approach will be taken both through the official processes and through ministerial intervention when we need to speed things up. The developers should be under no illusion that the objective of the developer contract—which they have signed in this spirit—is to remediate the properties as soon as possible. We expect them to adhere to that, and we will be holding them to account through the returns we have included in the developer contract.

I hope that my comments on target dates have answered the first point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. On the Select Committee point, as the author of—or one of the people involved in—that letter, I apologise if the wording was not as clear as it could have been in certain places. I would not read anything specific into the choice of words. Put simply, we accept from a practicality perspective that the denominator is going to move around. Occasionally, some buildings of over 18 metres come into scope, but they are a small proportion of the overall total, and we expect the cohort of buildings of between 11 and 18 metres in height to be variable in terms of the likely total.

I absolutely accept that point, but would it not be possible for the Government to have a current running total with the health warning that he has just given? In other words, “This is what we know as of this moment. The number may go up or down but, in the interests of full transparency, this is what we are aware of.”

The right hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point, and we are working towards doing that at the earliest possibly opportunity. I had meetings only last week on ensuring that that is the case. I absolutely accept that we need the greatest clarity and the greatest macro situation. Of course, it is important that everybody involved—I know that everybody present will do this—takes the numbers in the spirit intended and recognises that they are changeable. I absolutely agree that the central principle is that we should try to provide that information at the earliest possibly opportunity, and I will seek to do that from a ministerial perspective.

The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about sub-11 metre blocks. As he indicated, our approach, as articulated from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), has been to look at individual cases. We have been doing that, and I have been involved a number of times. As I make clear in correspondence with Members of Parliament, colleagues and others, we continue to ask for specifics. That includes concerns about potential issues with sub-11 metre buildings and whether someone has written them down in a document. For example, an expert assessor may indicate a problem in a FRAEW. We are going through those processes at the moment, and a very small number have articulated in writing a potential problem.

We are working with the assessors to get a more detailed understanding of the buildings affected, and we will continue to do that with any new examples. However, for the avoidance of doubt I stress that the number is very small. There is absolutely no confirmation at this stage that a cohort of buildings with an issue or a problem has been identified. In fact, the reality is quite the reverse. We have not yet identified a clear issue in sub-11 metre buildings, even in the very small number on which we have received reports, which we are still working through.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, he is absolutely right that the ultimate objective and yardstick is whether an individual is able to buy and sell a property under the usual commercial terms. I hope that, through the announcement on 20 December and the operationalisation of a lender announcement from 9 January, the top 6 banks will lend on properties again and that they do not require an EWS1 form—it is a series of “or” statements in the lender contracts—so that the problems around EWS1 forms have either gone or is going. I am receiving periodic data from the banks about the volumes in the industry, and I think we are seeing some progress.

Where issues with how lenders are working have been identified, I am taking them up with lenders. As recently as last week I spoke to one lender about its requests for EWS1 forms, which is not what the lending agreement said. We will continue to do that where necessary, but the indication the I am getting, both from the officials who are looking at this issue and from the banks themselves, is that a lot of progress has been made. If individual leaseholders in buildings are finding it difficult to meet the cost of EWS1 forms, I would be happy to get further information so that I can take it up with the financial services industry and the individual banks involved.

The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. We have thrown him a lot of questions, and he has characteristically tried to answer as many as he can on his feet. One thing is not clear, and I hope he might provide a little more clarity, particularly to leaseholders who are watching, as I know many are. In what way will the scheme be extended over time? Beyond the 49 developers that have signed the contract, what type of developer do the Government expect to come into the scheme at some point in future, if it is not through, as he put it, the very niche entry route of voluntary admission?

I am grateful for the question. I appreciate the importance of answering it, both for those who have an interest in it and for those watching who are affected by the issue. I hope we will be able to come forward with further information shortly. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman separately to articulate further information, if that is helpful, but I know that he will appreciate the fact that it takes time. We are trying to move as quickly as possible, which is one of the reasons why we chose an initial cohort and are seeking to move on.

I thank all Committee members for their contributions. The draft regulations establish a responsible actors scheme to ensure the safety of people in residential buildings, and to protect leaseholders and taxpayers from costs.

Will the Minister clarify something, for the avoidance of doubt? It is about when buildings are lower than 11 metres but there appear to be issues with valuations by estate agents who are unsure about the safety of the cladding arrangements. Has he made any consideration of what could alleviate the problem so that the market can operate properly and those who wish to sell can do so at sensible prices, and, likewise, those who wish to buy can get mortgages to do so?

That is out of scope, I think, but I will let the Minister answer briefly.

I hope the lending agreement that was articulated by the big six lenders in January goes some way towards answering that question. We are working with relevant conveyancing organisations to provide clarity, but the fundamental and substantive answer is that the big six banks have given commitments to lend on the affected properties, which means that the ability to buy, sell and remortgage should be possible. There will obviously be commercial decisions behind those decisions, but it should be possible, and the early indication is that volumes are starting to move again.

The draft regulations establish a responsible actors scheme to secure the safety of people in buildings, to protect leaseholders and taxpayers from costs, and to ensure that a developer eligible for the scheme will take responsibility for the issues that have been created by its construction. There is, of course, more to do, as we have discussed on a number of occasions today. The Government intend to expand the scheme, but I hope the Committee will welcome this important step forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 602).

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Fovargue. Subsection 12(3) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 dictates that the instrument should be laid as made affirmative.

I wonder if the Secretary of State can confirm if he is treating this issue as a conscience vote? Is his party doing that?

No.

In my opening remarks, I want to recognise the clear will of this House for the Government to deliver on their statutory duty with respect to sexual and reproductive health education in Northern Ireland. In passing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, the House decided that the recommendations made by the 2018 report of CEDAW, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, should be implemented. Colleagues will recall previous debates in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 in relation to ensuring that abortion services were made available in Northern Ireland, and the outcomes of those debates. This debate is not about reopening the ethical issues decided on by the House, but to ensure the implementation of the CEDAW recommendation to make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights covering contraception and access to abortion a compulsory component of the curriculum in grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland, and to monitor its implementation.

Can my right hon. Friend clarify if this would be different in any way from what is currently done in England? Has any assessment been made of how parents feel about how it operates in England?

I can clarify that it will be exactly the same as what is being implemented in England at this point in time. I will talk about parents’ opinions in a moment, so I thank my knighted and hon. Friend for his intervention. In implementing the decision of the House, I have sought to ensure that the education provided will be similar to that already provided in England with regard to contraception and abortion, and these regulations do exactly that.

Sexual and reproductive health education is an important component in ensuring that women and girls are well informed of the choices available to them. The CEDAW report found that relationships and sexuality education in Northern Ireland is

“underdeveloped or non-existent since it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos”,

and that

“Data show that the rate contraception use among young people in Northern Ireland is lower and their rates of sexually transmitted infections are higher compared with their peers in other parts of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the prevalence of unplanned teenage pregnancy in Northern Ireland is higher compared with other European Union countries, six times higher in deprived areas of Northern Ireland.”

We know that the current system is failing children in Northern Ireland when it comes to sexual education. The Gillen review in 2019 recommended the implementation of a statutory and standardised relationships and sex education curriculum delivery in schools. More recently, investigations have been carried out by the Northern Ireland education and training inspectorate and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the education and training inspectorate collected the views of 14,665 pupils and found that most primary pupils want to learn more about such issues as we are talking about.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that this complies with section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? What consultation has been carried out to ensure that it does comply with that section?

I happily will, but it will be later in my speech, if the hon. Member will allow me.

The Human Rights Commission recently conducted an investigation into relationship and sexuality education in Northern Ireland and recommended that the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 be amended to reflect the CEDAW recommendation, and that is exactly what the regulations do. In addition, a 2022 survey commissioned by a sexual and reproductive health charity, Informing Choices NI, highlighted that 78% of Members of the Legislative Assembly agree that that there should be a standardised curriculum regardless of a school’s ethos.

I do not take this decision lightly and I remain fully committed to protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. The devolution settlement does not absolve the Government of their clear statutory duty. It has always been my expectation and preference that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland would drive forward the implementation of this CEDAW recommendation, with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so. We have given the Department of Education and the Northern Ireland Executive every possible chance to move forward and we have engaged extensively to see how we can best support delivery.

The Department of Education has made some progress on this issue and has been working on the relationships and sexuality education progression framework. We assess that that can easily be updated to make it fully compliant with the CEDAW recommendation. However, although some progress has been made, the Department of Education has not acted to implement the required compulsory changes to the curriculum.

This statutory instrument has the following effects. It amends the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 to make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion, a compulsory component of the curriculum for adolescents. It places a duty on the Department of Education to issue guidance by 1 January 2024 on the content and delivery of the education that is required to be provided and places a duty on the board of governors and principal of every grant-aided school to have regard to the guidance. The Department of Education is also required to publish a report by 1 September 2026 on the implementation of the updated curriculum in grant-aided schools and to lay the report before the Assembly.

The Government recognise the sensitivity of the topic and that some parents may wish to teach their child about sex education or to make alternative arrangements for sex education to be provided in line with their religious background or belief about the age at which their child or children should access it. In recognition of that, the regulations also place a duty on the Department of Education to make regulations about the circumstances in which a pupil may be withdrawn from education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, or elements of that education, at the request of the parent. That follows the approach taken in England and Scotland.

The amendments to the curriculum come into force on 1 July 2023 in preparation for the 2023-24 academic school year. The rationale behind that date is to allow the Department of Education as much time as possible to progress work on the guidance in preparation for delivery of the education during the school year. The duty on the Department to issue guidance on the content and delivery of the required education comes into force on 1 January 2024. That will allow the Department to complete equality screening under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in line with its equality scheme, and will allow time for consultation should that be needed.

The question of whether the Department of Education will be required to consult is a matter for the Department, in line with its equality scheme duties. As set out in the regulations, the Government expect that the Department will consult on both the guidance and the provisions for the circumstances in which a pupil may be excused from the education or specified elements of that education.

Consultation with parents is already common practice in Northern Ireland—

What about in circumstances that could well happen in Northern Ireland, such as when not only an individual parent but parents in a school collectively decide that they do not want their children, plural, to take part in such lessons? What would the Department and the education authority’s position be when a sizeable number of people collectively decide not to take part?

It would be exactly the same as in England. The education would take place for those who want it to take place.

A school’s RSE policy should be subject to consultation with parents and endorsed by a school’s board of governors. The regulations do not change that approach and we expect and encourage the Department of Education to engage with and consult parents on the guidance it produces. The Department of Education and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment have been developing an RSE progression framework that will be adapted and used in the guidance issued by the Department.

Significant stakeholder consultation on the framework has been undertaken by the CCEA. We expect the progression framework will be further developed before being utilised as the guidance that will be issued in January 2024. We expect that to continue and the resources will need to be examined to ensure they comply with the updated curriculum.

It is important to state that the Government believe that educating adolescents on issues such as how to prevent a pregnancy, the legal right to an abortion in Northern Ireland, and how relevant services may be accessed should be done in a factual way that does not advocate a particular view on the moral or ethical considerations of abortion or contraception. Although schools will be under a duty to teach the updated curriculum in the 2023-24 school year, there will be a period of implementation and a need for meaningful engagement with teachers and parents.

Officials in the Northern Ireland Office will continue to work closely with the Department of Education. They have also engaged with the relevant education stakeholders to make them aware of the changes to the curriculum. We understand that further engagement with schools, parents and young people is also important so that they feel reassured about the content of the updated curriculum. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being here in person and delivering the statutory instrument to the House.

The regulations will ensure that Northern Ireland’s curriculum meets the rights and standards on sex and relationship education, bringing it into line with the curriculum in the rest of the United Kingdom. With these regulations, the Secretary of State is making it a statutory duty to implement recommendation 86(d) of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. As a result, age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sex and reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion, will become a compulsory component of the curriculum for adolescents in Northern Ireland.

The Labour party fully supports these measures. They are a critical step in ensuring that all parts of the United Kingdom meet their human rights obligations to children in this area. All adolescents deserve age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate relationships and sex education.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to get the tone right in the way the information is developed? Schools will have the freedom to present it in a way that they think is appropriate not only for the child’s age but for the type of children attending that school.

Having been a governor of several schools, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because it allows me to say that as chair of a school for seven years, I can tell him that schools provide that kind of service in a very sensitive and appropriate way and they strive for parental engagement wherever possible.

For too long, relationships and sex education has been unavailable to adolescents in Northern Ireland. In May 2019, Sir John Gillen’s independent review into how the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland deals with serious sexual offence cases made a series of recommendations. They included the need to include in the school curriculum for RSE matters such as consent, personal space, boundaries, appropriate behaviour, relationships and sexuality.

In April this year, an evaluation by Northern Ireland’s education and training inspectorate found that 44% of schools reported that they were delivering the topic of consent “to a small extent”, or “not at all”. Earlier this month, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission published a report into its investigation of relationships and sexuality education in post-primary schools. It found that the curriculum on relationships and sexuality education does not meet human rights standards. According to the NIHRC, most schools are not providing

“age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on access to abortion services”.

The investigation also found that:

“Some schools actively contributed to the shame and stigma surrounding unplanned pregnancy and abortion, by making statements such as ‘abortion is not a means of contraception and those who knowingly engage in casual sex must bear the consequences of their actions’”.

It revealed that some schools are teaching children that homosexuality is wrong.

In England, Scotland and Wales, compulsory RSE that embeds reproductive rights and choices within curricula—implementing the CEDAW recommendations —is already in place. In the Labour party, we welcome the fact that today’s regulations will help to ensure that the curriculum for children in Northern Ireland meets that standard too. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has welcomed the new regulations and emphasised that implementation and monitoring will be critical. Schools must support and develop their capacity to deliver RSE, and the commission and other expert independent organisations have offered their expertise to help with that. I urge the Minister to continue to engage with the NIHRC, and to ensure that the changes are implemented and monitored effectively, so that children in Northern Ireland can enjoy the same rights, education and choices as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Fovargue. I spoke to you beforehand, and to others as well. I wish to put on record, very clearly, my concerns—opposition, even—relating to the regulations before us.

As I said to the shadow Minister before we started—and the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear this—it is heart-warming to see the level of interest of mainland MPs in this issue for Northern Ireland education. Yet, when I raised the issue of funding for pre-school education, I did not receive the same interest in the Chamber, so it is really good to see Members taking the time to come along and take an interest in education when that has quite clearly been something that they were not really interested in in the past. I expect that I will see the Members present today at other Northern Ireland debates, and I look forward to their renewed support when it comes to fixing the framework and getting back to a United Kingdom at all times—not just when it is expedient to push an agenda.

I rise to highlight multiple concerns with the RSE regulations, the speed of the regulations, and the disregard for people in Northern Ireland, who I represent and who have come to me about this—church groups, education authorities, headmasters and teachers. The Secretary of State is aware, from the Northern Ireland Office, of the concerns of the DUP, and of individual constituents who have raised issues—who are numerous—from across this whole part of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I have had various letters from numerous people outlining the issues very clearly.

I have multiple questions, Ms Fovargue. I am sure that we will try to get this done before the votes at 7 o’clock if we can, but, if not, it is important that we have on record our concerns about these things.

The first is to grasp an understanding of the reason that the Minister is seeking to railroad this issue through with no consultation and with inappropriate information. I have read the standard response: “To enable schools to factor in a programme for the new deadline”—a deadline that the Minister imposed on himself. Yet, when schools have asked how they are supposed to operate on slashed budgets—and still afford staff, pay rises and increased utility costs—the Secretary of State does not seem in such a rush to enable them to know how they will run their statutorily obliged learning schemes with those severely underfunded budgets. There is interest in some things, but no interest in others—the really important core issues. If the Minister would give a frank and open answer about the real purpose behind this steamrolling, it would certainly be useful, moving forward.

Schools have expressed concern to me and my colleagues—those who will speak as members of the Committee and those who are attending—about the fact that schools are statutorily obliged to consult parents over RSE policy. That cannot take place, and yet again parents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland have not been given the same consultation facility as those in the Secretary of State’s constituency. The question is clear: why are parents in Strangford unable to consult on how their children are taught about sensitive issues? I am not saying that they should not be taught about sensitive issues, but parents, teachers and the Churches want to have the input that the Secretary of State’s constituents are allowed to sow into their children’s education. Again, the Secretary of State has forced his will on a majority, overriding their rights. That is how my constituents, constituents from other parts of Northern Ireland and I see it.

One might wonder how constituents in other areas would feel if this were done to them on an issue about which many care so desperately—the protection of children’s innocence and childhood. I am a grandfather of six grandchildren—two are at school, and some are at nursery and about to attend school. From a personal point of view I am aware of exactly what this measure means and of the impact it will have on all children across Northern Ireland.

When it comes to the ability of parents to withdraw their children from such lessons, the wording is so vague that it would be laughable if the education of my granddaughters and other children were not at stake. The Department must formulate its own withdrawal policy, but that does not need to be in place at the time that a new regulation is enforced. Again, the measure does not give the protection that the Secretary of State referred to. This is a clear lesson about the nanny state’s policy on raising children and the value placed on the autonomous nature of the family unit. The Government have shown their hand. Gone is the right of the parent, and in its place the Government are educating morally as well as academically, ignoring the input of parents, teachers, schools and the Churches. That is what these regulations do. Where will it end, and why are they being rolled out and enforced so quickly?

Is there a reason why the standard convention requiring 21 days between the laying of an instrument and its being brought into effect was not followed? Hon. Members must ask that question, regardless of their opinion or lack of opinion. Why has the protocol of the House been set aside in this case? What has made this issue so urgent?

Schools cannot implement this change without consultation, so what is the point? The Secretary of State imposed the deadline, so he can change it; it is very simple. It will be very interesting to hear his reply to my comments and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim.

As we get older, we sometimes become cynical, but it is not just age; sometimes we become cynical about life. Many of my constituents are equally cynical. They have contacted me in droves—the Secretary of State should be under no illusion about the depth of opposition to this measure from right across my constituency, and from all religious persuasions and political parties—to tell me that this is just another tool to beat the DUP into submission. The slashing of the budget was not enough to pressure us into sacrificing the integrity of Northern Ireland and our future. Perhaps the Government think that the imposition of yet another socially grey measure will force us into that. I hope that is not the case, but nothing I have heard so far from the Secretary of State has convinced me otherwise. It will certainly not convince my constituents, who—I say this respectfully—have lost all faith in a Secretary of State who seems so removed from the needs of the area under his responsibility and more focused on politically forcing movement. In other words, political machinations are at work.

The House must consider why the most relaxed abortion regime in Europe has been imposed on us. There is pressure for it to be relaxed to abortion on demand until birth throughout the United Kingdom. I always said it was going that way. The realisation of that is coming forth with zest, with a scant debate allowing zero discussion of the regime. The Government have been allowed to pass legislation of importance without acceptable scrutiny, and those who press for such legislation now will have to accept it when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think back to the recent outcry when the Government made the decision—rightly, in my opinion—to overturn the Scottish Parliament decisions on gender recognition. My colleagues were up in arms about the circumnavigation of devolution yet had been silent and complicit when that was carried out by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland a number of months previously—double standards, forked tongues and two opinions about the same thing. The silence of the House on holding the Government accountable to due process set a precedent. Yet again, on this issue, that will ultimately affect how the Government view and treat devolution.

I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with great interest. I understand his anger, but—I know he will not agree with me—it follows logically that if he and his colleagues want to have a greater say in what is going on in Northern Ireland, because he is criticising the Secretary of State for taking this action, surely the answer is simple: return to Stormont.

The answer is even more simple: get the protocol and the Stormont deal right, making that acceptable to Unionists. As the hon. Gentleman has brought the subject up, for far too long the Conservative party has pursued a policy that ignores the viewpoints of Unionists. He is a Unionist and understands our point of view—that is my opinion—but I cannot understand why we do not have a process that we are part of. The Stormont brake does not deliver that, nor the legislation of legal importance that we want to see in place. Where does that lie? It lies with the Secretary of State and Government here. To be clear, the first thing we wish to see happen is an Assembly back to normal and working—that is our wish.

Most Members do not get involved in the Northern Ireland question—although the hon. Member for Lichfield clearly has—but the issue is being used as a baseboard for UK legislation. The processes that Members turn a blind eye to for Northern Ireland can and will be used by successive Governments as a precedent—I say that again, because it is important: this sets a precedent. A precedent that has been set before will be set again.

My constituents remain unimpressed—I say this seriously—with the Secretary of State. He, one constituent said to me, seeks to sow discord and crash our society in Northern Ireland. Some right hon. and hon. Members on the Back Benches might not wish to hear that, but it has to be said; it is being said in Committee whether they want to hear it or not. That is the point I am making. I hope that our comments will be listened to for once, as we have a Delegated Legislation Committee to do just that.

I remain unimpressed by a Government who will not take decisions on funding for education in Northern Ireland but will dictate that access to abortion must be taught this incoming year without thought to parental choice or the basic right to practise our faith. That is what the Churches are telling me. Hon. Members might not want to hear that, but I am telling the Committee that the Churches are saying this is a step in the wrong direction. They wanted to be consulted in the process, but it has not happened. Again, there is that opinion.

Those are personal issues, which may be of little import to the House, yet this House should be unimpressed that their Government have carried out a number of unscrutinised legislative works without push-back from those in every party whose job it is to scrutinise legislation and to hold Government to account. The Committee, and by extension the House, should be holding Government accountable as to why they cannot give an answer to the three questions I have for the Secretary of State.

First, given the terms of the SI protocols, why was the 21-day convention breached and what is the precedent set here that will allow Government to override procedure at whim? That is what this does. We have to express real concern. Secondly, why does the instrument not place a duty on the Department of Education to have regulations in place to facilitate parents withdrawing their children from sexuality education by the implementation date of the policy, and what steps is the Northern Ireland Office taking to ensure that the Department does in fact have such regulations in place? My constituents want the right not to be involved and to withdraw their children. I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State has said so far. Thirdly, why is this House passing legislation without the basic steps in place, again ignoring the viewpoints of elected representatives and people of Northern Ireland from all political parties?

The age-old argument of the slippery slope cannot be overstated in this case. Again, the Government are using this as a stick to beat the DUP into submission. The problem is that it is not the DUP taking this beating: it is the people of the Province that we represent and all those political parties, churches, parents and teachers. The future of our nation is being beaten into submission by a Government who refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about legislation that affects children receiving adequate passage through the legislative process. Informing people that, “If you had the Assembly up and running, this would not need to come through this method” when the fact is there is no need, even in these circumstances, for the disregard of protocol and procedure is inaccurate and, again, should be challenged.

The procedures followed for this piece of legislation are unacceptable. The job of this Committee in this House is to call for an explanation and hold the Government to account, and that is what this DL Committee should be doing. I ask Members present, regardless of their opinion on the issue itself, to join me in doing so. We will divide the House and this Committee when it comes to it, and we feel that that is important. This is not a proper mechanism for bringing forward such monumental change, and the Secretary of State cannot get away with pushing the boundaries in Northern Ireland as a precursor. Northern Ireland remains a part of this United Kingdom. We in Strangford should benefit from the appropriate mechanism of democracy in the same way as constituents do in Daventry, Hove, Banff and Buchan, and Swindon.

This legislation is not right. It is opposed by schools, parents and churches of all denominations alike. They have a right to express that—just not to the Secretary of State or Government it would seem. On behalf of my constituents in Strangford, the teachers and parents who have contacted me in droves with emails, letters and phone calls, and the good people who have expressed real concern, I wish to register my opposition to what is coming forward today. Again, with respect, the Government and the Secretary of State are pushing a policy that they know is abhorrent to the many people in Northern Ireland who oppose it. What a disappointment it is for us to see it again proven that the Secretary of State does not really care about the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—what does he do? He works against the people of Northern Ireland, and that is a fact.

First, the Secretary of State hit the nail on the head at the beginning of his speech: this is a sensitive issue. Yet he has trampled all over it like some kind of rogue, rampaging political elephant, not caring two hoots about the sensitivities. I will justify that statement in a moment.

Secondly, there is no point harking back and saying, “Well, if you wanted to do this—if you want it done in Northern Ireland and if you want the Northern Ireland input—get the Assembly up and running.” Many people take that view. The Assembly is not up and running because this Government have decided to dispense with the central pillar of the Good Friday agreement—namely the need for the consent of both communities, with the Secretary of State arrogantly dismissing the concerns of the Unionist community. In fact, maybe I should thank him because in the last local government elections he probably added about 5% to our vote because the way he dismissed people’s concerns angered them so much. Again, we are seeing this tonight.

This is a sensitive issue yet the regulations were brought in with speed and without consultation. It does not respect the deep faith that people—parents, teachers and school boards of governors—have, and it does not even provide for a parental opt-out. In fact, the Secretary of State has already admitted that the parental opt-out might not be available by the time this comes into force. Why the speed? In fact, on this sensitive issue, we have even circumvented the normal process in this House.

Normally regulations are laid before Parliament and come into effect after 21 days. These regulations came into effect on the day they were laid, with the paltry excuse of, “Oh, we have to adhere to a timetable because we have to work towards the 1 January 2024 deadline.” That deadline was not imposed by anybody. It was a decision made by the Secretary of State. It is really odd. If that decision was made to ensure that the regulations come into effect in schools, does he really think that a new curriculum and everything else will come in the middle of a school year?

The idea that this had to be done by 1 January, and that was the justification for circumventing parliamentary procedure, is just not sustainable. Indeed, the other House has already asked the Government why there is a need for the 1 January deadline. If it leads to the House being circumvented and safeguards for parents not being in place, there is every reason to ignore it.

We have not only circumvented the procedures of this House but not had any consultation. Members have asked about the differences between what will happen in Northern Ireland and what happens in England. The first difference is that when the guidelines were introduced in England, there was full consultation. They were made on the basis of consulting all interested parties. That will not be the case in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we do not yet know what guidance will be given to schools, or what the opt-outs for parents are likely to be. We do not even know whether the regime in Northern Ireland will be similar to the regime in the rest of the United Kingdom. Since the curriculum and the guidance here is up for review, whatever comes in in Northern Ireland could be out of sync with what happens in England. We have not been treated the same as England.

When the abortion legislation went through, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children took a judicial review. In that review, the judge made it quite clear that although there had been consultation on the principle of abortion in Northern Ireland, there had been no consultation on education and how it would work out in the education system. The judge specifically said that the Secretary of State would be mindful of the opportunity for consultation, but he has ignored that as well.

There has not been any consultation with the various stakeholders, who have made a very strong case for consultation. The Presbyterian Church has pointed out that its members on boards of governors will be implementing this guidance. At the end of the day, if there are legal cases, complaints and accusations that the law was broken, it is not the Minister, the Department of Education or the education authority, but the boards of governors that will be held responsible. Whether that is in Catholic maintained schools, state-controlled schools, voluntary grammar schools or integrated schools—whatever it happens to be—they will be the people held responsible, yet they have not been consulted about any of this.

There is a very strong case for consultation. A judge has instructed—or suggested—that there should be consultation, and each of the providers has also made a case. Since they will be responsible, why were they not consulted in the first place? Consultation is even more important because, as the Secretary of State says, we do not have the legislative Assembly, in which these things could be debated. I thought that would have strengthened the case for consultation, not weakened it. That is why I say that he has trampled over this issue like some rogue elephant, not concerned at all about the impact that it has.

Thirdly, the measure does not respect faith. Let us look at why the Secretary of State has said that it is so essential. It is not that there was not action being taken. Schools already have relationships and sex education. The question is whether it is adequate, or whether it meets the standards that CEDAW has demanded. The Education Minister—in fact, even CEDAW has accepted this—was already starting to do work. Schools have the teaching, there was action being taken in the Department of Education, and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment was already preparing new materials. Work was being done.

Here is the crucial thing: the objection was that what was happening in schools had a value base to it. Schools, teachers and various parents were demanding that this education should not be a valueless exercise. Quite frankly, the reason it is sensitive is that values do get attached to it. I will read out the answer from the CEDAW report:

“Most children in Northern Ireland attend denominational schools, either Catholic or Protestant. Church representatives play active roles in school management boards, and the result is that relationship and sexuality education, although a recommended part of the primary and post-primary statutory curriculum of the Department of Education, is underdeveloped…it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos.”

That is the crux of the issue, and that is why all members of the Committee should be concerned about the issue. Because what does the Department now say? It says that what goes on in schools is not good enough. Why, and what is the specific complaint? Because schools, boards of governors, teachers and parents insist that this part of the curriculum has attached to it some of their religious values—what their faith dictates.

Sex and relationships education is not some mechanical thing. The Catholic Church notes that the Department says, for the purpose of legislation, that the education should be

“age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate,”

but the Church points out:

“In every major democratic jurisdiction, issues such as abortion, gender bioethics, human sexuality, are highly contested scientific and ethical issues, subject to democratic debate and shifting electoral and legislative positions.”

On a point of order, Ms Fovargue. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. My hay fever is playing up and I just wonder whether I have permission to take my jacket off. It is very warm.

Certainly. Hon. Members may take their jackets off.

It is going to get hotter!

Here is the crux of the matter: if the Secretary of State insists on having valueless sexuality education—if that is the objective—then he is challenging those who teach it, he is challenging the parents whose children receive it and he is challenging the ethos of the schools. This is where the problem arises. In responding to the complaints of CEDAW—it does not like values being brought into this; it wants it to be value-free—the Secretary of State is saying to teachers, parents and the people who control various schools across Northern Ireland, “Your views don’t count any longer. They can’t count.” Either values are reflected in education or they are not, and we are going to demand in the curriculum and the guidance that people do not bring their values into it. In a free society, that is wrong. In a society where we have strict laws against discrimination, it is contradictory.

I want to challenge the Secretary of State. Where does that leave the likes of St Killian’s, a Catholic school in my constituency? I have great admiration for the work that it does. I commented on a speech made at its prize distribution one year—I go every year—and the principal said to me, “Why are you surprised that the speaker, in front of all the parents and children, should make such a value-based speech? After all, an important part of our education is not just to teach them to be good mathematicians or biologists or linguists, but to teach them the values that we hold dear and that their parents hold dear.” The impact of the regulations is that those people are discriminated against. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim pointed out, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents that. It says that there should be equality of religious belief, political belief and so on. Section 76 says, “And you cannot discriminate against people on that basis.”

That is the essence of our opposition to the regulations. What is appropriate? Who is going to decide what is appropriate? The Secretary of State says, “Oh, there’s going to be significant consultation,” but since he has already agreed that the outcome must be that what prevails in schools at present can no longer prevail, then the outcome of the guidance is very clear: teachers are going to find themselves constrained in what they teach, how they teach it and the values that they attach to it—in fact, they will not be allowed to teach them. This will be some mechanical thing. “You want an abortion? You can have an abortion. You want to find out where you can get it? There’s all the addresses where you can get it. Does it matter what the reason is? No, it doesn’t, because we can’t teach anything about values.”

That is why—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford has said the same—I have had so many teachers, parents and boards of governors say to me, “This legislation can’t possibly be allowed.” The Secretary of State knows that this is sensitive, but he is prepared to walk over it all. I would like to hear from him how he intends to square the circle that, on the one hand, this has to be value-free, but on the other hand it is riven with value views. How does he square that circle? Whose side will he fall on? What will be the sanctions for those schools whose teachers or boards of governors say, “This is totally against our ethos. We can’t do this. We have got to bring our values into it”? What are the sanctions going to be? Does he want to make them all criminals? That has just been ignored in all this.

The last issue is the whole thing about parental opt-out. The Secretary of State has said, “There will be parental opt-out provided for, we’ll have consultation on it and we’ll bring in guidance.” That will not be in place for 1 January, so the education could be in place—schools could be required to teach it, parents could be required to have their children go to it—and there would be no guidance on the grounds on which people can withdraw their children from it. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say, “Well, there will be eventually.” If the grounds are so curtailed, it will not be an opt-out anyway, will it? And if the grounds are so wide, why is he introducing the legislation? He could find in some rural areas that parents totally refuse to do it. What about a small school with two or three teachers where all the teachers say, “This goes against our faith and our beliefs. We feel that we cannot give a class on abortion without injecting some values into it”? Who will teach it in that school? Will that school be penalised? Will the teachers be penalised? What will happen? Those are all questions that have been glossed over.

I can see why the Secretary of State did not want consultation. I can see why he wanted to tighten the timetable in this House. I can see why he is so vague about what is appropriate, about what opt-outs there will be for parents, and about the rights of those who feel that their faith is affected by value-free relationship and sex education in schools. I do not want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, but progress is being made in the Assembly. I do not know when it will be up and running—I suppose that it will take longer than the Secretary of State hopes, because of the inactivity in dealing with real concerns about the Windsor framework—but why is this the most pressing problem for it? There is no legal case, as far as I know. There is no uprising by the population. I never had a letter or email about this issue until the Secretary of State introduced this legislation.

Why is priority being given to this legislation? Believe you me, Secretary of State, if you think that by introducing it you will get a debate about how we should all get back into Stormont so that these things cannot be imposed on us, it will not work. The exact opposite will be the case. This is seen as pure vindictiveness. It has no justification. It is full of problems that have not been addressed and that, significantly, the Secretary of State did not address in his opening speech. I hope that he will address the issue of where the fairness is in this. Where are the safeguards for people who hold strong views on these issues and who will be affected by this legislation that he has introduced?

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to follow the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim.

The hon. Member for Lichfield posed a question, which I suppose he thought got to the nub of the issue, along the lines of, “If you were back in Stormont, you could sort this out yourselves”—basically, “Sod off and do it.” That is the implication. This issue has nothing to do with Stormont; it has everything to do with how law should be applied consistently across the United Kingdom and how law should be made, whether Stormont is in place or not.

I was hoping that the Secretary of State would answer the series of questions that have been posed. As you well know, Ms Fovargue, Delegated Legislation Committees, by their very nature, usually happen in less than a quarter of an hour—matters are agreed and the legislation goes through because law is being applied consistently. This particular piece of delegated legislation was subject to special scrutiny. The 44th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee poses a whole series of questions for the Secretary of State to answer. I had hoped that he would answer them to save me having to speak. I had hoped, too, that the shadow Secretary of State might pose them, but it appears that the report has fallen on deaf ears among those who are here to hold the Secretary of State to account.

I am not a voting member of this Committee, but I will pose those questions. I asked the Secretary of State a question about section 76. He promised he would come to it, but he did not bother; it was not in his speech. I know the answer. I was told a very long time ago, “Never ask a question unless you know the answer.” The answer is patently obvious. The Secretary of State knows that he could not give an affirmative answer to the question that I asked.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report details five issues. The first is that the implementation schedule was rushed. The second is that there has not been a full public consultation comparable to the consultation when similar policy changes were made in England—again, that is contrary to what the Secretary of State said. The third is that regulations to ensure that parents have a right to withdraw will not be in place when the policy is implemented. The Secretary of State has indicated that that is a matter for the Department of Education. Again, that is very different from what is in place in England.

Fourthly, the report states that what constitutes

“age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate”

guidance—what will actually be taught—has not been defined. Fifthly, the report points out that the regulations were brought into force the same day that they were laid before Parliament, breaching the convention that at least 21 days should be allowed between the laying of an instrument before Parliament and its being brought into effect. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim has dealt with that, so I will not go into it.

Essentially, the Secretary of State is duty-bound to make good policy, and the 44th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says that this is bad policy. That may come as a surprise to a number of Conservative Back Benchers, but they are being asked tonight to vote for something that their Government, in the other place, said is bad policy. They should perhaps take some time to reflect on that.

I want to deal with a couple of the issues that the report puts on the record. Why does the Secretary of State believe that this policy has not been rushed, given that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:

“Considering these points together, we are concerned that the implementation schedule may be rushed”?

It goes on, in paragraph 28:

“When taken alongside the other concerns on timing, the House may wish to press the Minister to bring forward the necessary legislation to push back the implementation date. This could allow time for a public consultation and would ensure the policy can be fully developed.”

I want to know why the Secretary of State has not considered that point. It was made by his colleagues in the other place and was the advice they gave him after serious scrutiny of the regulations.

I would like to know whether the Secretary of State can tell us what will actually be taught. He cannot tell us—he has already confirmed that. Paragraph 43 of the report states:

“When we asked NIO how ‘age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate’ guidance would be determined, NIO responded that this was a matter for DE.”

The report concludes:

“On such a key point, this is not an illuminating response; at the least, it would have been helpful for NIO to have liaised with DE to provide more detailed information. Questions remain about how this key aspect of the legislation will be implemented.”

I would like to know how the Secretary of State intends to do that, because what is taught goes to the crux of the matter. Say a child asks, “Is it possible for me to have an abortion, because I don’t want a child?” or “because financially it would be too great a burden?”. Would such a question be allowed to be asked and answered? The law prohibits a person from having an abortion for financial reasons, or because they just do not want a child; they have to have a specific legal reason. Will the Secretary of State answer whether those matters will be taught, or will children just be told, “You can have an abortion for any reason”? He knows that those matters have not yet been addressed in any way through the drawing up of a schedule of what should be taught.

Will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of the right of a parent to withdraw their child from such education? The 44th report puts it this way:

“The House may wish to enquire further why the instrument does not place a duty on DE to have regulations in place to facilitate parents withdrawing their children from sexuality education by the implementation date of the policy, and what steps NIO is taking to ensure DE does in fact have such regulations in place.”

On conscientious objection by teachers, the report says:

“We asked NIO whether teachers would have the right to ‘conscientiously object’ to delivering the approved material. Again, NIO said this would be a matter for DE, although NIO noted that a ‘large majority’ of schools currently outsource RSE to third party providers.”

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to consult providers of outsourced RSE? Most scripture unions are outsourced across schools. Would those organisations find that they are in breach of the law? What rights will be put in place to protect outsourced RSE?

The report said that outsourcing was one of the things that CEDAW complained about; it said that the outsourcers were bringing in the values as well.

I thank my right hon. Friend for expanding on that point. No guidance has been presented this evening by the Secretary of State on the issue of objection. What about teachers who wish to object? The report goes into the issue; it says that information

“on how key terms will be interpreted, on the rights of teachers to conscientiously object and on funding…has not yet been determined or, at least, has not been made available to Parliament.”

The following is in bold:

“This is unfortunate; it would have helped if NIO had liaised with DE to ensure more detailed information was available, even on matters not specifically the responsibility of NIO. The House may wish to press the Minister for further specifics.”

I press the Secretary of State for further specifics on this subject, which his colleagues in the other place posed those questions about, because they were totally absent from his speech. He has a duty in these Delegated Legislation Committees to answer such questions.

The Secretary of State said that the regulations complied with the Northern Ireland Act, but failed to explain how, given that they do not comply with either section 75 or 76 of the Act. The regulations discriminate against religious education. What he proposes is not a neutral policy; in effect, regardless of the ethos and religious or moral values of a headteacher, board of governors or school, certain things will not be allowed to be taught because they are of a religious nature. The Secretary of State has failed to explain that, and really needs to go back on this, because he and the Northern Ireland Office will ultimately find themselves in court on this matter—he knows how litigious lawyers in Northern Ireland are on sections 75 and 76. The Government have nailed their colours to the mast on protecting the architecture of the Belfast agreement, but the regulations ride a coach and horses through two of the most important protective rights: sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Secretary of State answered my question with the words, “Yes, I will address that in a moment,” but he did not, because he knows in his heart that the regulations breach sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act.

A number of Members have said, “Suck it up, guys. This is what happens in England.” Of course, it is this is not the same as what happens in England. We ask the Secretary of State to do what was done in England. Do not take my word for it; take the words of the Government Members in the House of Lords. Paragraph 54 of the report says:

“It is striking that full public consultations were carried out when comparable regulations were introduced in England, and when similarly controversial regulations on abortion were introduced in NI. NIO has not offered any convincing reasons why these Regulations should be treated differently.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the 44th report, and I am really surprised that the Secretary of State thought he could bluff the regulations through tonight. I am also saddened that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove, did not challenge him on these matters, because they are key issues that need to be responded to. As the report says, it is striking that the same thing did not happen in England, and that the regulations are being treated differently in Northern Ireland.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim mentioned the submissions from Catholic bishops, the Presbyterian Church and boards of governors. I do not intend to dwell on those points, but I will say this: the report blasts what this Committee is doing, calling it bad policy. Paragraph 56 says that we can

“help to improve confidence in the policy”,

and we must work to do that. It says:

“Given that this is a controversial policy with a wide range of interested parties and strongly felt views, a public consultation would have been appropriate as a matter of good policy making.”

It would have been good policy, good practice and appropriate to have a consultation and put the horse in front of the cart. But no, the Secretary of State has tonight said, “There might be a consultation later; I will just rush this through.” He could poll us tonight, and then decide that the regulations should be put out to consultation. He is under no pressure whatsoever.

I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would support a consultation—I did not hear him give any reason why he would not—and Members on the Government Benches have indicated to me that they feel this is a conscience issue, so why does the Secretary of State not go for a consultation and come back to this matter afterwards, if he is so convinced that he has it right? After all, there is the persuasive argument that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee strongly believes that this matter should be put to consultation. I have never seen such a report from a Committee in my 14 years in the House. It castigates colleagues on the Government Benches, and the Government, and we should be cognisant of that.

This is not a minor issue, but it does not really matter whether we are talking about abortion or education around abortion; this is about how policy is made, and the Government have got it wrong tonight. I urge colleagues to consider that, and to say to the Government, “Let’s do the right thing; let’s get the consultation right.” There is a former Solicitor General here, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon. I am sure that he knows, when something like this is done, that it is not right.

I encourage colleagues to press the Government on the issue. Paragraph 60 of the report says about the 21-day breach:

“The House may wish to press the Minister for further justification on why the 21-day convention was breached. We also ask NIO to consider carefully any possible future breaches of the convention.”

Why has the Secretary of State breached the 21-day rule? He was under no obligation to do that. I am sure that the lawyers on the Government Benches want to know why. What is the compelling reason for breaching the rule? It just appears absurd to me.

The report concluded that

“It would have been helpful for NIO to liaise with DE”—

that is, the Department of Education—

“to ensure that more information was available.”

The regulations will force all schools, regardless of their ethos, religious background, moral views or views of the headteacher or board of governors, to teach children between the age of 11 and 16 that they have the right to abortion. That is the law. We are also teaching them how to obtain one, without their parents’ consent. The regulations will remove parental responsibilities in this area.

Further, the regulations will prohibit the presentation of any opinion opposed to abortion. The explanatory note states that schools must

“not advocate or promote any particular opinion, on sexual and reproductive health and rights in accordance with the recommendations in the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”.

That is religious discrimination. Forcing schools to promote and facilitate abortion is not a neutral or value-free position. The Government are forcing schools to take on a position that is not normally theirs. The regulations are aimed exclusively at suppressing the expression of a particular viewpoint; they threaten the conscience and rights of teachers and of boards of school governors; they are against article 9 of the European convention on human rights; and they also contravene the terms of section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which prohibits public authorities, such as the Department of Education, from discrimination based on religious belief and political opinion.

If the Government pursue this route, they will end up in court. I encourage them to pull back from that and to get this matter right. On the other hand, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 recognises the religious character of the role played by boards of governors in Northern Ireland when it lists them among the institutions that are exempt from the statutory duty to have due regard to the need to promote equality between religious beliefs and political opinions. I am asking this House to keep to the law, to make good law and to make law consistent with what was laid down in 1998, and not to drive that law in the opposite direction. These regulations have been condemned by both sides of the community in Northern Ireland; that point has been made well this evening.

The regulations seek to impose an ideologically based view of abortion on schools in Northern Ireland, contrary to legal protections against religious discrimination. They have also been rushed through without consultation and in breach of parliamentary convention. This is bad law, so I ask the Secretary of State to pull back from this tonight, and to make good law.

We have heard a wide range of strongly held personal views, and contributions on all aspects of the regulations from members of the Committee from all parts of the House. I will answer some of the questions raised.

To clarify completely for the hon. Member for North Antrim, my officials undertook an equalities screening under section 75 and considered section 76. The provision of such information has no discriminatory impact on religious groups, and the curriculum will not affect the ability of parents to provide advice and guidance to their children that is in keeping with their religious views.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim asked a couple of questions that I will pick up right at the beginning and re-emphasise later on in my speech. He mentioned the Court of Appeal judgment in relation to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I am pleased that the judgment recognised that the UK Government have acted lawfully. The Government are committed to ensuring that women and girls are able to access abortion services, to which they have a right, and which are available in all other parts of the United Kingdom.

On the Court case, the judge’s comment was that education was not covered in the consultation on abortion, but there would be an opportunity for that to be covered when the Secretary of State brought forward regulations. He did not consult with anyone, even though the Court indicated that he should.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, but I think I made mine equally strongly. Another question was: what consideration was given to allowing conscientious objections by teachers? A large majority of schools in Northern Ireland outsource relationship and sexuality education to third-party providers, due to limited professional learning opportunities and limited teacher confidence in delivering RSE. The question of whether teachers object to teaching scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, including access to abortion and contraception, will be a matter for the Department of Education, as it has overall responsibility for education in Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, I will not. A number of points were made about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I thank it for its consideration of these regulations. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide further information on those issues. On the coming into force date of the regulations, the Department of Education’s position is that it must follow the direction of the former Education Minister, which meant that it was unable to progress work on this issue. To allow the Department to get on with implementing the CEDAW recommendation, our assessment was that this aspect of the regulations needed to come into force immediately. In addition, section 12(3) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 dictates that the instrument should be laid before Parliament under the made affirmative procedure.

On the points raised on consultation, the Department of Education advises that significant stakeholder consultation has been undertaken on the RSE progression framework, which it has been developing with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment over a number of years. We expect that document to be updated and used as guidance by the Department. Consultation with parents on RSE is already common practice in Northern Ireland, and the Department of Education requires each school to have in place its own written policy on how it will address the delivery of RSE. A school’s RSE policy should be subject to consultation with parents and endorsed by a school’s board of governors. These regulations do not change that approach, and we expect and encourage the Department to engage and consult with parents on the guidance it produces and the circumstances in which a parent can opt their children out of the specified education. I talked about the section 75 and section 76 duties.

On when the regulations come into force, only the duty on the Department of Education to produce guidance came into force on the day that the regulations were made. The 21-day convention does not apply to the made affirmative procedure, so I followed that procedure, as dictated by the primary legislation that placed this duty on me. I am confident in the legal arguments around that.

I absolutely believe that the Department of Education should press forward with implementing and updating the curriculum, and these regulations are designed to do that. I will conclude by saying that I had no desire to debate this subject today, but the House made its decision in 2019—nearly four years ago. This has not been rushed.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 616).

The statutory instrument was laid on 8 June under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, otherwise known as SAMLA for short. It amends the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by broadening the designation criteria and introducing new financial and trade measures.

These enhanced sanctions reflect our continued condemnation of the role Belarus is playing to facilitate Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. They are designed to disrupt the ability of Belarus to support Putin’s war and to deter it from engaging in further actions that destabilise Ukraine.

The Government introduced their last package of sanctions against the Belarus regime almost a year ago. It included a range of financial and trade measures, and our trade with Belarus has subsequently dwindled. However, Belarus continued to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It allowed Russian forces the use of its territory as a launch pad for the illegal invasion. It trained Russian soldiers and supplied materiel and it is providing logistical support to Russia.

Lukashenko’s cronies continue to spread Putin’s poisonous propaganda and disinformation, and there is evidence that Belarus could be providing a route to circumvent the unprecedented suite of targeted sanctions that we and our allies have imposed on Russia. In response, we are determined to scale up our sanctions package against Belarus.

The measures in this latest package seek to block circumvention routes and broaden our designation criteria, while adding new powers to constrain propagandists. Taking each aspect of the package in turn, the instrument contains new trade sanctions, including a ban on UK exports to Belarus of banknotes and a wide range of machinery, as well as chemicals that could be used in the production of chemical and biological weapons. It will prohibit the export of precursor chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. The instrument also bans the import of Belarusian cement, wood, rubber and gold. This will help further clamp down on revenue streams for the regime. The measures also include further financial sanctions to prevent Belarus from using money markets or transferable securities instruments to raise revenue, thus constraining its ability to support Putin’s invasion.

Another key aspect of this instrument is the broader range of designation criteria, which will allow us to sanction a wider range of the regime’s facilitators and cronies, including Government aides, advisers and Ministers. Where appropriate, it will enable us to target family members of individuals already designated, to prevent them from benefiting from asset transfers designed to circumnavigate the bite of UK asset freezes.

The instrument provides the UK Government with powers to prevent designated Belarusian media organisations from spreading propaganda in the UK, including over the internet. The measures also provide powers to restrict the reach of Russian and Belarusian disinformation and can go some way to reduce the impact of the disgusting practice of posting false confessions online.

These strategic and targeted measures will sit alongside the wide-ranging sanctions that we have already imposed on more than 100 entities and individuals, including Lukashenko and members of his regime, for their role in the violent repression of Belarusian civil society, opposition groups and media. It is important to be clear that we have no grievance with the Belarusian people. It is they who suffer most from Lukashenko’s oppression and his support for Putin’s illegal war. They deserve leadership that works in their interests and not those of President Putin.

To conclude, this instrument targets the Belarusian regime for its continued support of Putin’s illegal actions in Ukraine. It is designed to impose an economic cost on Lukashenko’s regime and to restrict the support it can give in the future. Of course, we reserve the right to introduce further measures in co-ordination with our allies should Lukashenko’s regime continue to prop up Putin’s illegal war. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations to the Committee, and they are particularly timely, given the role that Belarus played in the events of the weekend. Indeed, we have just been discussing them in the main Chamber, and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), just responded to the Foreign Secretary on them. We will not want to speculate too much on what is happening in the relationship between Putin and Lukashenko, but it is clear that Lukashenko and elements of his regime have been actively aiding and abetting Putin throughout the barbarous war of aggression against Ukraine, and we need to watch the situation carefully.

I am pleased that further steps are being taken to isolate the puppet regime in Minsk, not only because of its actions in the war in Ukraine, but for the reasons the Minister set out, including the repression of its own population. In addition, we have seen the movement of tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus, and I am sure that the Minister, like myself, will also have heard the powerful words from Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the leader of the opposition in Belarus, and all those who have been repressed by Lukashenko’s regime over many years.

We will therefore not seek to divide the Committee, and we will fully support the steps the Government are taking to further constrain and isolate Lukashenko’s regime and those who are closest to him. In all the sanctions regulations over the last number of years, the Opposition have been clear that we support the Government in expanding the sanctions regime and emboldening the sanctions taskforce and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to ensure that the regulations have teeth and a real impact on those taking these actions across the globe.

Changes that allow the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to more effectively target persons in the Belarusian regime who support Russia’s illegal war—including persons with the ability to nominate, appoint or remove a director of a relevant entity and persons that are linked to the Belarusian authorities—are common-sense alterations to our existing regime, and we of course support them. However, the Minister will not be surprised that I have a few questions for her.

Enhancing our sanctions regime, although welcome, has to be accompanied by enforcement and investigation. I am sorry to bring this up again but, according to OFSI’s website, no financial penalties for non-compliance have been issued since September 2022. My understanding is that none have issued under the relevant Russia regulations or the original Republic of Belarus regulations since this phase of the war against Ukraine began. I find it slightly hard to believe that that means there has been total compliance with our regimes since that date, however well-crafted they are.

I hope the Minister can set out what we are doing to investigate and enforce these things. I am sure she will not want to comment on live investigations, but it is clear to the Opposition that we need to have a deterrent effect on those involved. We have all heard the reports of sanctions loopholes and of those seeking to circumvent the sanctions, whether through third countries or other means. I would like some assurances from the Minister that investigations and enforcement are under way as we expand the text of these regulations. We can have paper after paper of sanctions, but they need to be implemented. If we look at some of our international comparators, including the United States and the European Union, we do appear to be lagging behind on this enforcement point.

We welcome the export prohibitions on the likes of machinery and banknotes. I was a little concerned that we are only now prohibiting precursive materials for biological and chemical weapons. I understand that sanctions are a work in progress and that we are constantly looking at new areas that may be of risk, but I hope the Minister can explain a little more clearly why it is only now—16 months on from the onset of this phase of the war in Ukraine—that we are dealing with materials that could have been used to develop biological and chemical weapons for export to associates of Lukashenko. I hope she can explain a bit more why it has taken that long.

We welcome the prohibition of imports on cement, wood, rubber and gold, the new measures relating to internet services and online media, and the ban on ancillary services. The Minister made some important points about why these measures are so critical in terms of online and the spreading of propaganda, the intimidation of those opposing the Lukashenko regime domestically, and the spreading of Russia’s lies about this conflict, and they have our full support.

In conclusion, this weekend underscored the extent to which Putin relies on Minsk and on Lukashenko and his regime to further his warped imperial ambitions on our continent and, as we have just seen, to act as a guarantor of security for the Russian regime itself. Although Belarus is the junior in the Union State, it is far from an inconsequential piece of the puzzle, and it is likely that Lukashenko’s influence will only grow as Putin’s handling of the war and his hold on power become more erratic and tenuous. We stand with the Government in bringing these regulations forward, and we stand with the Belarusian opposition movement, which remains steadfast in the face of Lukashenko’s tyranny. All of us, in this place and internationally, need to pay more attention to what has been happening in Belarus as well as in Russia itself. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on the issues I have raised questions about.

I will keep my comments brief, given that I agree with most of what has been said. The SNP has long called for sanctions on Belarus; in fact, only a few years ago, a few of my SNP colleagues joined protesters outside Parliament.

I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, particularly when we look at things against the backdrop of Putin’s illegal war. The long and the short of it is that I am grateful for the action that the Minister proposes to take, and we will not, therefore, force a Division.

I am grateful to members of the Committee for their thoughts and for their support for this latest set of regulations. As I say, this sadly continues to be a sort of rolling activity as we tackle and try to keep ahead of those who are working to support Putin’s illegal war.

I will do my best to answer the questions. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is rightly a stickler when it comes to keeping us right on the importance of investigations. Of course, that is a continuing challenge as sanctions are set over time and those who have been sanctioned consider testing them. A number of cases have now been tested, and the sanctions have withstood the test of legal stretch from both sides. We are therefore pleased, and comfortable, that the methodology FCDO officials are using is robust and will withstand these things. If that were not so, we would feel that we were not going in the right direction, but we absolutely are.

In terms of the enforcement piece, the FCDO, OFSI, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency are working incredibly closely with the financial sector and relevant businesses to ensure that there is effective implementation. Just for reference, OFSI has issued £20 million in fines so far, but I am happy to get the team to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth with the details so that he is fully briefed on that. As I say, we continue to monitor the situation and to look for new sanctions tools if we need them.

I would certainly welcome that clarification in writing, because the information on this on the FCDO website is not clear. However, questions have also been raised in the main Chamber a number of times about potential loopholes involving the export of metals from Belarus specifically. Could the Minister provide an update, perhaps in writing, about those cases, which hon. Members have been raising?

Yes, I will happily take the question of specific metals away and get back to the hon. Gentleman, and make sure that we are following that through. As I say, we do not comment on future sanctions, but we are always happy to hear from colleagues, and indeed those more widely, who think we should consider certain areas, businesses and individuals in our deliberations around future sanctions.

Nuclear weapons are obviously an incredibly difficult area. We are aware of President Putin’s continuing comments about the potential deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. The position is very simple: we condemn absolutely those words, and we encourage the entire international community to do the same to make it clear that that sort of irresponsible nuclear rhetoric is not acceptable. We hope that even President Putin would consider de-escalating the situation, and we continue to monitor it. I was not in the main Chamber just now, but I know that the Foreign Secretary continues to be clear in his messaging across the piece and with allies on this issue.

To conclude, let me set out again that it remains absolutely in the interests of the UK and our allies to continue supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s assault and to impose a cost on Putin and all those who support him in his flagrant attack on the international rules-based order. Lukashenko and his facilitators and cronies continue to provide that support, and we will continue to try to reduce their capacity using our sanctions tools. We are grateful for Parliament’s solidarity over the actions we have taken in response to Putin’s invasion, for the support of the Committee today and for what may yet be to come—thank you to all. This is difficult work, and we have an incredible team working flat out in the FCDO to keep on top of it and to continue making sure that those who so flagrantly disregard international rules will be brought to justice. In the meantime, I thank the Committee, and I hope it will support the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.