House of Lords
Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer, I pass on thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to the Bill and for the assistance of the House for making the passage of the Bill so efficient. I note that the Bill is based on the early years review from the Department for Health and Social Care, which indicates that, at such a stressful time, many parents could benefit from some form of legislation to ensure that they are aware of the help available to them from charitable and publicly funded sources. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who gave of their time and effort to make a valuable contribution to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer, whose efforts on the Bill, as well as on hospices, special needs schools, prison reform and many other areas, will pay dividends for future generations.
By providing parents with accessible and reliable updates on infant care, the Bill empowers families to make informed decisions, fostering stronger family units. This aligns with our principles of personal responsibility and informed choice, helping parents independently to support their child’s development. It equips parents with early-stage guidance to help address any issues at the onset, potentially reducing future reliance on public services, which will enhance efficient government spending, with early support minimising the need for costly interventions later in life.
By offering parents resources on key topics such as nutrition, health and time-tested milestones, the Bill promotes stable and forward-looking early childhood experiences. We value family stability as a cornerstone of society, and many on our Benches view this as a proactive step towards creating responsible, well-adjusted citizens.
Finally, by providing parents with essential information, the Bill aims to reduce unnecessary visits to healthcare outlets, enabling resources to be allocated to those with more urgent and complex needs. This aligns with His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s aims to relieve pressure on the NHS and optimise efforts on the long-term sustainability and success of public services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this Bill to the House and for meeting me to discuss it. I have no doubt whatever that he will continue to advocate for children’s health with his customary passion and dedication. I am also thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for enabling today’s debate.
This Government are committed to raising the healthiest generation of children in this nation’s history. However, as I expressed at Second Reading, while the intentions of the Bill are good, we need to be able to deliver a package of support for infants, children and families that is comprehensive rather than piecemeal. Through our mission-led approach, the Government will drive long-lasting and sustainable change for babies and children. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, in the coming weeks, we will publish clear ambitions for each mission, putting the health and well-being of our children at the heart of everything we do.
While we cannot support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, I can assure your Lordships’ House that we will continue to work tirelessly to improve the lives of babies and children right across the country.
Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I would like to thank the long list of speakers who supported the Bill at Second Reading, as well as the Public Bill Office which helped to facilitate. The long list of speakers is an indication of how necessary it is.
Since Second Reading there are two factors that have increased the importance of the Bill. First, with the move away, in so many countries in the world, towards autocracies, dictatorships and managed democracies, it is more and more vital that pupils in our schools leave school with a sense of why British values, democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion and the equal worth and dignity of every person matter. It is absolutely crucial that pupils should leave school with a sense of those values and why they need to be supported.
Secondly, I have heard, sadly, that there are moves afoot to subsume citizenship education into what is called spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. That, of course, is absolutely vital, but one of the main recommendations of The Ties that Bind—the report from the committee of which I was a member and from which the recommendation for this Bill came—was that this should not be subsumed in that way but should be taught in its own right. Citizenship education is, at the moment, taught so weakly in so many schools and we need to give it a clear focus. I very much hope that the Government will take this Private Member’s Bill seriously.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, again I thank all noble Lords who gave their time and effort to make their valuable contributions to the Bill. I briefly flag the input of my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold who drew on her extensive experience in this area, both as former chair of the council of the Institute of Education and, most notably, as former Secretary of State for Education.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe that mandating specific values through education risks undermining parental rights and local autonomy. We support the rights of parents and communities to instil their own values, and we fear that a one-size-fits-all approach could impose a government-defined set of values that may not reflect either local or parental preferences. The Bill could be viewed as overreach into the lives of young people, and we advocate for smaller government and less interference in individual choices, especially when it comes to personal beliefs and family matters.
By introducing mandatory teaching on values, time and resource could be taken away from core subjects. Rigorous academic standards should be the focus, with schools lasering in on traditional teaching to ensure that students are prepared for both the workforce and society, rather than on mandated values.
Finally, the term “British values” has been defined differently by many people and may lead to inconsistent interpretations. The Bill could leave room for varied, potentially biased, teaching, depending on who defines these values and how they are implemented in practice, potentially creating division rather than unity.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to thank first of all the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for highlighting in the Bill the importance of the fundamental British values in preparing young people to take their place in society and, as he identifies, in the modern world, as responsible and active citizens. I thank too all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. It was an extraordinarily good Second Reading debate, where noble Lords raised a whole range of different issues and rightly pushed the Government to ensure that those issues are addressed.
Although the Government agree with the sentiment of the Bill, we do not believe that legislation is the right way to secure effective implementation by schools. Schools already embed these values through their statutory duty to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development, supported by statutory curriculum content, notably in citizenship and relationships education.
I reiterate to the noble and right reverend Lord my support for citizenship education, given my role in its introduction in my previous incarnation at the Department for Education. It is, though, important that schools retain the autonomy to tailor their approach to the needs of pupils and to reflect new developments, societal changes and topical issues. This approach will ensure that students understand the relevance of the values to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.
Schools have a good understanding of these values and integrate them well. However, it is right to push this Government and we will continue to support our teachers, provide resources and, through the independent curriculum and assessment review, ensure that young people develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens in work and throughout life, and in a curriculum in which they are represented. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for bringing this forward.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
May I say something very briefly in response? I remind the House that fundamental British values already have to be taught in schools. It is not a question of inventing something new; they already have to be taught. It is a question of giving them a sharper focus and more solidity.
I have to say, with all due respect, that I was extremely surprised to hear what the noble Earl said because, although there are of course certain values that vary between people—some people are vegetarians while other people are not, for example—there are certain fundamental values that are essential to our political life. I wonder which of the values the noble Earl would disagree with. Democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion, the equal worth and dignity of every person are not arbitrary values or a matter of personal taste; these are fundamental to the whole life of this country, and pupils should be taught them.
Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate today and to lead this important legislative campaign to abolish, once and for all, the great injustice that is imprisonment for public protection—or IPP sentences.
Parliament abolished IPP sentences on human rights grounds in 2012 but not, unfortunately, retrospectively, leaving thousands stuck with no hope and serving long, long-discredited, sentences. At least 90 prisoners have taken their own lives. Some are now free, both from prison and from licence in the community, having jumped through the right hoops—at least those who were fortunate enough to have the hoops to jump through.
I pay tribute, though, to the previous Lord Chancellor, and the current one, for making significant changes to shorten the licence period, ending this living nightmare for around 1,800 former IPP prisoners earlier this month. But many prisoners are still living this nightmare, and it is those people who I focus my Bill on, which quite simply seeks to convert these never-ending IPP torture sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end date, giving them hope.
There are three groups we are concerned with here. The first is the never released IPP prisoners, of which there were 1,095 at the end of September this year. The second is the recalled 1,600 people who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release, but who have since been recalled to prison due to a licence breach, though in the majority of cases for no further offence. They now need again to prove to the board, 18 months or more into the future, that they will still be safe for release. The third is those now out on licence—around 1,200 people currently considered safe by the Parole Board, yet still living in a state of fear and paranoia about recall to custody.
My Bill seeks to resentence all three groups eventually, along the lines suggested by the Justice Committee in the other place back in 2022. In fact, the Bill mirrors the amendment first moved by the committee’s widely respected former chair, Sir Bob Neill, to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and then in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, resentencing was described by the committee as,
“the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence”.
Crucially, the committee also recommended setting up
“a time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary”.
The role of the expert advisory committee is extremely important but rarely, if ever, acknowledged by the Government. I sincerely hope the Minister will address this concern. The expert committee, hand-picked by the Government, alongside the judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, would be free to explore all options for resentencing and to make suggestions for how this could indeed be achieved, balancing the important fundamental principle of justice with the importance of public protection. My Bill then calls on the Government to enact legislation to enable this resentencing to take place for all three groups, but in whatever order the committee advises, perhaps prioritising those with the shortest tariff or the longest time over tariff.
At this point, I make an apology for a couple of flaws in the Bill, which have been graciously pointed out to me by Nicholas Cooke KC, a former deputy High Court judge who has himself handed down IPP sentences. There are two flaws for us to be concerned with, and I will immediately table amendments that I hope will address them both in Committee. I genuinely apologise in advance if the following is less suited to Second Reading than Committee, but I believe that the Bill must be in the best possible shape if it is to find any favour with His Majesty’s Government. I hope there are elements of the Bill that the Minister might find palatable.
The first flaw relates to Clause 1(6) about imposing no heavier penalty than the original tariff. Of course, the tariff was set as a minimum release date, equivalent to a standard release of 50% of the way through a sentence, which now, of course, is 40% with SDS40 involved. The correct maximum penalty to be imposed with resentencing, therefore, would be double this tariff. My first amendment will clarify this.
The second flaw concerns those people who would otherwise be sentenced to life imprisonment had IPP not been available and who are still considered a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. I accept that there should be provision for keeping an IPP sentence in place in those circumstances, although I suspect this would apply to only a relatively small number of cases.
None of this is meant to distract from the very real need for movement by this Government on resentencing. I am aware, as are your Lordships, that the Government’s current position, as in Opposition and like the previous Government’s position, is that resentencing will not be considered on the grounds of public protection. This has been expressed by new Ministers, but there appears to be some confusion as to what resentencing actually means.
Most recently, at a Westminster Hall debate last month, Minister Dakin expressed concern that
“resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 242WH.]
With respect, this is a distorted reading of the Justice Committee’s report, and I hope the Minister will address this discrepancy in due course. The missing point, as was highlighted, I think, by every other speaker in that debate apart from the Opposition spokesperson, is that the expert advisory committee would be there to ensure that this is not the case. For example, the committee could advise that releases should be staggered so that probation can properly mitigate any risk, with suitable licence periods imposed. Please can we move the argument on from automatic release and no supervision to the practicalities of what a fair and safe resentencing exercise would actually look like?
My Bill proposes, as did the Select Committee, that everyone on an IPP sentence—all three groups mentioned earlier—is resentenced within a set period of time. But if the Government cannot stomach what was described in last month’s debate as the “full-fat version” of resentencing then perhaps they might consider partial resentencing, which might look, for example, at just the second two groups to start with: those who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing this safe for release group is less problematic. Or it might look at just the third group: those currently released and living as normal lives as possible in the community. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing them is non-existent, so why will the Government not consider sentencing these people who, I repeat, the Parole Board currently consider safe?
The Minister in the other place made a valiant effort to explain why at the debate, claiming resentencing would
“halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 243WH.]
But of course, as I just explained, that would be entirely up to the Government. If the Government wanted to continue the risk management and support, all they would have to do would be legislate for this as part of a resentencing exercise.
I hope all these issues can be properly explored in Committee if the Government grant time for it, but before I sit down I thank the dozens of individuals and organisations that have contributed to this really important debate. Most of all, I thank all the IPP prisoners and their families who have written to me with such heartbreaking stories of injustice. My message to them and to all those still serving IPPs in prison or in the community is: please do not give up hope. Likewise, I do not want to give false hope. They deserve better from us all.
It is up to the Government, and the Government alone, whether my Bill becomes law, in whole or in part. IPP reform is clearly a matter of conscience, with the principle of justice to be balanced with protecting the public. Therefore, there should be a free vote on this Bill in both Houses, in my opinion, but I want to work now with the new Government to resolve this scandal for good. If that means making compromises to make progress then I am prepared to do just that. I want to use the Bill to find common ground to bring resentencing a step closer, even if we do not reach our final destination immediately.
Let us work together to end this scandal and give hope, at long last, to the hopeless. History is being written right now, and my plea to the Government is this: do not be on the wrong side of history. Do not wait for the ITV docudrama to cast you unfairly as uncaring, cold-hearted time-wasters who left damaged people—many of them broken by the state—to rot away in prison while those in power stood by wringing their hands. No. Let us work to find a solution before any more lives are lost to this terrible stain on our precious justice system. In that spirit of co-operation, I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and as an unashamed admirer of my good friend the Minister for all that he did as chairman of the PRT and as chief executive of Timpson, before he became Prisons Minister, in advancing the cause of prison reform and the welfare of prisoners and former prisoners.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech in support of his Bill, and I thank him for his Bill which provides us with an early opportunity in the tenure of this Government to debate the troubling issue of IPP sentences. Several of us—I see a number of others in their places in your Lordships’ House this morning—have been hammering away about this subject for many years. Although, thanks to the previous Lord Chancellor, my good friend Alex Chalk, some progress in bringing this brutal regime to an end has been made, it is fair to say that finishing the work that began with the abolition of the sentence in 2012 still looks some way off.
The latest MoJ figures from September 2024 tell us that there 1,095 offenders serving an IPP sentence who have never been released from prison on licence. Of these unreleased prisoners who have served their minimum tariff, about two-thirds have been held for more than 10 years beyond their tariff. There are, as the noble Lord mentioned a moment ago, almost 1,600—the number is 1,599—offenders subject to IPP sentences who are in prison on recall.
The English language is a rich one, but even it runs short of adjectives to describe the disgusting state of affairs that is described by people being recalled to prison for an indefinite period for minor breaches of their licences, having already been released many years after the tariff has expired. We must stop recalling people who have committed trivial or non-serious breaches of their licence.
Time does not permit me to set out the whole litany of disgraceful aspects of the IPP regime. For present purposes, while I can concede that there will be political and practical difficulties and risks for the Government, and additional burdens for the court, in having to administer a resentencing exercise for the 2,700 or so IPP prisoners in custody and the hundreds, if not thousands, of others out on licence, saying that it is all too difficult and that we can improve things only at a risk-averse glacial pace is unacceptable, inhumane and uncivilised. If the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who I am delighted to see in his place, the Labour Home Secretary who legislated for IPP 20 years ago, can bravely speak up for the need for reform, the current Labour Government should have the courage and decency to bring this miserable saga to an end without delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, indicated, resentencing does not necessarily mean immediate release from custody or licence restrictions in every case, although I suspect that in about 90% of cases that should be the result.
As the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood memorably said several times in your Lordships’ House, the IPP sentence and its consequences are a stain on our criminal justice system. It may not be easy or convenient to remove that stain, but it is not impossible. The Government have a moral duty urgently to remove it, and now is not too soon.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I echo the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, when I ask how many scandals have to be endured by the citizens of this country before a Government finally say, “No, we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the Post Office Horizon scandal or Windrush or infected blood or Hillsborough or Grenfell. We are going to act to right wrongs and address horrendous injustices”.
The very welcome initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in proposing this Bill deserves nothing less than a fully positive response from the Government. There is no excuse for not giving one. We are told that so far they have copied the previous Government in refusing to countenance the resentencing solution recommended so forcefully by the Justice Committee in the other place in its 2022 report because they are concerned about dangerous prisoners being released. The admirable then chairman of that committee, Tory Sir Bob Neill, has been followed in the chair by Labour’s Andy Slaughter, who also says that addressing the IPP scandal is a priority.
The first reason to effect change is the very simple and straightforward ethical and moral argument of justice. The Government need to find a backbone. Those behind bars include James Lawrence, who has served almost 18 years after being originally sentenced to just eight months—25 times over his original tariff. Ninety IPP prisoners have committed suicide, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, mentioned. One man set himself alight and another went on hunger strike for 61 days in protest at his plight, which has rightly been called Kafkaesque. Labour’s Bambos Charalambous told the other place in a debate he initiated two weeks ago of
“the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 223WH.]
It is no wonder that the UN special rapporteur on torture has called IPP sentences psychological torture.
What are this Government going to do? Are they going to keep these nearly 3,000 imprisoned people locked up arbitrarily and indefinitely, just like in Guantanamo? That is not hyperbole. Are these prisoners going to become any less dangerous or challenging by getting more and more embittered, angry, hopeless and mentally ill as a result of their outrageous continued confinement? That is surely justification enough to end this scandal but, if it is needed, a second reason is practicality in the light of the prison overcrowding crisis. Of course, the Probation Service needs to be better resourced and other support needs to be put in place in proper release plans to prevent former prisoners experiencing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and other factors that make reoffending more likely, as brought out in the exchange on this topic in Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, was deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in his ministerial role.
The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, rightly talked about risk management and support, and of course that has to be in place, but it comes back to the indefensible inhumanity of keeping these people in prison. I applaud the criminal justice campaigners and the families who have lobbied and battled on this issue. Clara White, sister of Thomas White, whose mental health has, unsurprisingly, deteriorated in prison, where he has languished for 12 years for stealing a mobile phone, has said that it will take a
“stronger fight than ever before”
to finally put an end to this cruel programme. I am up for this fight because I am outraged that not only did the previous Government refuse to act but so far this Government have too. I hope to hear a change of heart.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, so far we are all in agreement, and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for proposing this Bill. Earlier this year, around April, I met a man called Mike at a Harrow youth centre that I had been asked to open. Mike sat me down to remind me that I had met him in autumn last year when he was in a category C prison, and he was delighted to remind me of the details. Last year he had spent nearly 10 months on recall, having been released from an IPP sentence 17 years earlier, as he had forgotten to inform a probation officer that he was taking his wife on holiday in August 2022. As a result of that simple lapse of information, the Probation Service had him recalled to prison. What a waste of public money. What a scandalous destruction of a marriage opportunity. What a pernicious persecution of an individual’s hard-earned freedom for a simple act many decades earlier.
That is exactly why the IPP sentence is so evil and pernicious, and we thank God that the last Government had the guts in their earlier iterations to remove it—albeit not the stamina to deal with the stain of those who remain in prison, nor to end the permanent persecution of those who are outside wondering when the doorbell will ring or a tap on the shoulder will come for some suggestion that they have forgotten an aspect of their sentencing duty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, this is simply psychological torture. It is unacceptable, it is evil and it should not be in our justice system. In fact, it shows us as having an injustice system.
I am wholly supportive of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. As he suggests, it could be amended on one or two minor points but, frankly, we have gone round this circus too many times. The Government would show guts by simply accepting the Bill. I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Timpson: accept the Bill, and then we can deal with amendments brought forward by the Government, if necessary. Let us get the process through and then we can all be proud of the fact that Members both in the other place and here have resolved this painful and unnecessary persecution of people who deserve better than all this.
I noticed some months ago that the previous Government were happy to announce in the other place that there should be simple legislation to end the Post Office postmasters’ scandalous sentencing—in one swoop, which we also accepted. Watching the announcement by the Minister in the other place at the time, I noted that he stated that some postmasters deserved sentencing and imprisonment because they had stolen, but the simple legislation dealt with eradicating all sentences. He admitted that this would of course mean setting free those who had stolen. Why then do we continue to persecute those who have done their time, holding them on the inside and then threatening them for the rest of their lives?
Simply, Minister, accept the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my voice in favour of the Bill, and say amen to all that I have heard. I declare an interest as the Anglican bishop for prisons in England and Wales. I an not going to repeat all that has been said regarding the shocking statistics that have already been outlined.
Like other noble Lords, I am glad that such sentences can no longer be given and that there have been some changes in the rules around the termination of licences, but those rules are complicated and not easy to navigate. That is particularly significant when it comes to offering hope and support not only to those serving their sentences but to families and friends as well.
At the heart of the Christian gospel is a living hope and a God who, in Jesus Christ, embodies both justice and mercy. The IPP sentence reflects neither justice nor mercy and does not offer hope. When I visit male prisons in particular, I can guarantee that the issue of IPP sentences will nearly always be raised by prisoners, officers and chaplains because of the reality of what is being experienced. Anyone who visits a prison and meets those serving IPP sentences will be struck by the sense of uncertainty, hopelessness and injustice and the impact that it has not only on individuals but on the wider prison and on families on the outside. Surely that is also not helpful for the victims of crime.
When there are people in cells watching those alongside them working towards a clear release date, while the person serving the IPP sentence has no such clarity and may remain in prison for longer than the person who seemingly committed a more serious offence, that of course seriously affects the well-being of the individual. It raises levels of anxiety, hopelessness and alienation, which impacts a wider prison environment and puts pressure on staff. I see and hear again and again the deterioration in mental well-being of those serving IPP sentences, which, ironically, leads to situations that then have an adverse effect on their sentence because of their outbursts of behaviour due to anger, frustration and hopelessness. The cycle is indeed vicious.
Many noble Lords will be familiar with the case of Rob Russell and the tireless campaigning of his brother Roddy. The brothers are originally from the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, and I had the privilege of meeting Rob on a recent visit to HMP Swaleside. Rob was given an IPP sentence in 2009 with an initial tariff of two and a half years. He now suffers serious mental distress and seems to be in a disturbing vicious cycle. Prison is not the appropriate place to address his well-being and restoration. This is just one story among many. It is heartbreaking to hear the events of suicide and attempted suicide and to see how that pain and hopelessness continues to ripple out across prisons, families and communities.
I come back to the need for clarity regarding the purpose of prison. If we believe it is all about punishment, then IPP sentences are doing a jolly good job. If we believe in transformation, a reduction in reoffending and transforming lives that create stronger communities, then IPP sentences are failing. It is stark to hear prisoners and staff say how hard it is to speak of hope and justice when someone is living an IPP sentence. For the sake of the prisoners in question, the wider community and our society, I submit that a resentencing exercise is necessary. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to think again on this important matter.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on bringing this Bill forward and on his powerful speech. Many points have been made this morning that we have made before in this House and will make again until we reach a conclusion and can put this tragedy—for that is what it is—behind us.
I have been pleased that the Minister has taken action, with the support of his colleagues, very quickly to implement the changes that were agreed in the Victims and Prisoners Act, not least, on 1 November, the lifting of the sword of Damocles in relation to licence conditions; the further action that will be taken in February; the framework that was published last week, which helps towards the progression that we all want; and, shortly, the action plan that I hope will have been not refreshed but completely revised. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us when that is likely to be published, because it will be really important in dealing with some of the issues and the tragic cases that have been mentioned already today.
If the Government feel that they cannot do a wholesale resentencing, for the reasons that the previous Administration and my own Government have spelled out already, there may be a halfway house. It may be possible—I know that my noble friend Lord Woodley will have spoken to Nicholas Cooke KC about this, as I have—that we could pull together a panel of retired judges and senior KCs. I say retired because there is a backlog of 65,000 in the Crown Courts at the moment, so the judiciary is stretched beyond belief. Realistically, speaking as someone who, with good and bad outcomes, had responsibility for the judicial system and sentencing all those years ago, I know the pressure that the Government are under. Still, it might be possible to do a sifting job—one already being done in miniature by cases being referred back. Members of this House will have heard of the Doughty Street Chambers. How could we not? It has been successful on a number of occasions recently where it has returned to the cases all those years ago and the way the judiciary dealt with them. I carried my responsibility heavily, and I hope that sometimes the judges themselves will think about why they did not see IPP as part of a menu. Doughty Street Chambers has been able to reopen those cases and get them rejudged.
We can find a way forward if we want to. Mental health provision needs to be stepped up. Mention has been made of Thomas White and I have been in long-standing contact with his family. We can ensure that, in that sifting exercise, we get people on to the right trajectory to be quickly moved out of prison.
Finally, I agree entirely with those who have said that we have got to stop this nightmare of the return to prison, with the notion that those on licence can be returned for quite minor incidents. Whatever the probation inspection said at the end of last year, its underlying message was “We’ve got to get this sorted”. If my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill and the amendments he has already put down are an avenue for being able to do that, so much the better.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as I am also a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.
I welcome the progress that is being made by the Ministry of Justice in automatically terminating the IPP licences of around two-thirds of those on licence as of March 2024. But we are still talking about more than a thousand IPP prisoners who have never been released, and more than 1,500 who are in prison having been recalled, which I find deeply troubling. We are all familiar with the injustice at the heart of this, but it bears constantly repeating. The offence was abolished in 2012 because Ministers recognised and declared that it was unfair, yet, shockingly, no transitional provision was made for existing IPP prisoners serving this unfair sentence, so we are faced today with three startling facts.
First, there are some IPP prisoners who are many years past their tariff and have even served longer than the maximum determinate sentence for the offence of which they were convicted. We heard many examples of this during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act. Secondly, it follows that if they had been sentenced after the sentence was abolished, most would have received a determinate term from which they would long ago have been released, whatever the perceived assessment of risk. What a lottery that is, yet the administration of fair justice should never depend on mere chance of this sort. Thirdly, and particularly egregiously, the Justice Committee heard expert evidence, published in its third report, that the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence leads to not only greatly increased risks of suicide and self-harm, but to a perceived risk of reoffending which prevents release, irrespective of whether any risk remains from the original offence. This must be a bitter pill to swallow for the prisoners affected.
Not only has the state failed to apply the repeal of this unfair sentence to existing IPPs, but the effects of that unfairness for many IPPs, through no fault of their own, are preventing them being released because of the psychological damage that an unfair sentence has caused them. Their original offending behaviour and the risks associated with it have long since become irrelevant. It is not surprising that many of them have given up hope and stopped engaging with progression opportunities. The question is how to break this deadlock.
This PMB revisits the idea of resentencing. I think a resentencing exercise would incentivise IPP prisoners to re-engage with progression programmes and break the current deadlock, even if it might not lead to their immediate release—it does not have to do so. But if the Government are not prepared to resentence them, it is heavily incumbent on Ministers, who I know are putting fresh impetus into this, to explain how the IPP action plan will provide the hope that IPPs need, and need quickly. We cannot just accept an indefinite continuation of the status quo.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is an honour to take part in this debate and to listen to the unanimous views. I predict what the remaining Back-Bench speakers’ line will be on the Bill. It is clear that the overwhelming spirit of this House is to support the Bill, introduced in such a powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Woodley.
The arguments have been made and there is no need to repeat them all. I would like to emphasise the mental health aspects of how this works. There is no doubt that the mental anguish caused by these indeterminate sentences is one of the cruellest aspects of the entire affair. Looking back to 2020, a report from the Prison Reform Trust, No Life, No Freedom, No Future, set out in graphic detail how the indeterminate nature of these sentences destroys people’s life chances and their mental health. They are fundamentally damaged by the way this cruel law operates.
A particularly concerning aspect is the way in which poor mental health works against those who are incarcerated. Instead of being seen as a need that has to be addressed, it is seen in certain circumstances as one of the factors that leads them to continue to be incarcerated. The lack of support to address these issues compounds the problem. I came across a statistic of particular concern. The prisoners are placed under a responsibility to demonstrate their innocence, effectively—that they are not going to commit another crime, even though it is always impossible to prove a negative. Yet some of them, one recent figure being 840 out of 2,800, are in prisons where they cannot undertake the work needed to prove that they can be released. The sheer cruelty of this policy has to be acknowledged.
I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister is aware of all of this. He is hearing all our speeches and no doubt recognises this and, I suspect, fundamentally agrees. The Government have to be brave here. They will come under criticism and there will be hard cases; there is no doubt about that. But the Government need to be brave and adopt the approach set out by my noble friend Lord Woodley in his Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I would like sincerely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing this debate today.
We have discussed this in your Lordships’ House so many times that it is sometimes hard even to find something new to say about it, yet here we are, finding new sources of anger at this injustice. Imprisonment for public protection was always a disastrous tactic. I agree that some of the judges and lawyers involved really ought to have understood that. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, also said, we have common ground among a quite odd bunch of noble Lords. It is just like the fish farms debate: we have an immense range of people with very different ideologies, yet they all feel the injustice of this issue.
On the issue of IPP prisoners held for years beyond their sentence, last month, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, said:
“We are not considering a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, because that would automatically release a number of people who we do not believe it would be safe to release”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/24; col. 214.]
I do not know whether that has been updated but it is a massive cause for concern, because it simply is not true. As lawyer and campaigner Peter Stefanovic points out in his film on this issue, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee says that a resentencing exercise, overseen by a panel of experts, for everyone still serving an IPP sentence is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by that sentencing. It recommended that the panel explore how resentencing could happen in a timely way, but one that would not jeopardise public protection. That does not mean the immediate release that the Justice Secretary suggests; she must know that, and if she does not she really ought to.
We cannot say that we have a justice system if we have an innate injustice such as this. The sentencing and continued imprisonment of IPP prisoners has just been cruel. We Greens are well aware that prison is overused as a tool of justice. Far too many people are imprisoned, when there are much more effective ways of rehabilitation or stopping reoffending.
I can understand the anger of people who say that we should look up serial rapists and murderers and throw away the key, but in this instance, we have, for example, a 17 year-old who steals a bike or people who grab other people’s mobile phones. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone listening to this debate would not agree wholeheartedly with us. This was a Labour Government’s mistake. It is down to this Labour Government to fix it. We definitely need a free vote on this in both Houses. If we do not have one, it will be yet another injustice heaped on these prisoners.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, my contribution to this important debate, as part of the “odd bunch” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on bringing this Bill to your Lordships’ House and on his remarkable speech.
During the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act, there were many well-informed and impassioned speeches on IPP prisoners from all sides of the House, as there have been this morning. Many speeches referenced the remarks of a previous Lord Chancellor that the continuing situation of IPPs was a “stain” on our criminal justice system. We know this, given the levels of mental distress, self-harm and suicide among IPP prisoners. As many have said, hope has been extinguished from their lives. I hope that my own MP, Andy Slaughter, as the chair of the Justice Committee in the other place, will urge action on this.
I wish to make two brief points. First, significant voices have been raised to say that a resentencing exercise is the only fair and just way of dealing with the situation for IPP prisoners. These voices include Dr Alice Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, and the House of Commons Justice Committee report in 2022, which described the IPP sentence as “irredeemably flawed”. The committee proposed in this Bill would provide the structure and parameters to ensure that an effective and fair way forward could be found for dealing with this situation.
Secondly, talk from Governments—both the previous Government and, regrettably, up until now, the current Government—about resentencing not being appropriate abjectly fails to recognise and accept that it is the state that has extinguished hope in these prisoners. The state must therefore act to restore hope and address the most egregious of injustices. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about this in his response.
My noble friend Lord Woodley has done this House, this Government and this justice system a service in bringing forward this Bill. I wish it speedy passage to the statute book. I look forward to voting for the helpful amendments which will come forward in Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing forward this Bill. I am conscious that one of the obligations on us in this House is not to raise expectations falsely among prisoners and their families as to what is likely to be achieved. We have heard many passionate speeches in favour of the resentencing proposed in this Bill. We are about to hear one—possibly two—speeches putting the case against resentencing. The last of those will be determinative. The Government are not going to agree —they have made that clear—to a resentencing exercise. They say that, for those who are out on licence, the measures passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act, which had cross-party support—proposed by a Conservative Government and now implemented by a Labour Government—should deal with them in the next couple of years, and the issue should go away.
The question is about those in prison. For them, there is the action plan. I have a degree of confidence in the action plan—in both the officials behind it and the plan itself. I think there is a seriousness of purpose and intent on the part of Ministers and officials in making this work. An annual report will be published shortly, and I am sure we will have an opportunity—we should have an opportunity at least—to debate it in this House when it appears and hold the Government to account over the action plan.
The difficulty is that, although the action plan will push ahead and, I imagine, secure the release of those IPP prisoners with whom it is easy to engage, there will still be a residue. There will be a number of IPP prisoners whom it is going to be very difficult for the Parole Board to recommend for release. I want to think ahead to what we should be doing, thinking and discussing about those people. They could potentially, if nothing is done, remain in prison for the rest of their lives, not because of the crime they committed but because of the position—often damaged by mental health issues—they are in today.
One thing worth asking about them is why they should continue in prison at all. Why are they part of the prison system? In so far as they were in prison in the first place as a punishment, that punishment has been discharged and served; they are way beyond tariff. Many of them are in secure mental hospitals. Maybe a mental health setting would be more appropriate for many of these people. It is not easy to get into a mental health hospital if you are in prison—it is a little bit like that joke in “The Importance of Being Earnest” that you cannot get into Wandsworth prison after 4 pm; it is very difficult to get into prison. It is difficult to get into a mental health institution. Should we make it easier, or should we establish a single location—perhaps using part of the underoccupied open prison estate—where those prisoners who do not qualify for mental health hospitals could be brought together? The curative powers of the Probation Service and the Prison Service could be brought to bear on them to help them get out, rather than being left in a prison context.
Time has run out, so I simply put that thought there and I hope the Minister might be able to respond. If he cannot today, could he at least give us some assurance that he will give thought to issues like that? This potentially quite large number of people who might never be released under the existing system deserve thought now. If resentencing is not on the cards, something along these lines should be considered.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; he has nicked half of my speech—we will have words afterwards, I am sure. Seriously, however, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on all the work he has put into bringing forward this Bill. We have had well-informed, passionate and eloquent speeches from all noble Lords.
We have an outbreak of consensus in the House today—I and all noble Lords very much welcome the Bill. It would right an injustice perpetrated on the unfortunate rump of individuals sentenced to indeterminate sentences, who, after years, are still languishing in prison. Some of the case stories that noble Lords have brought this morning will stay with me. I particularly wanted to address that rump of people. According to Sir Nic Dakin’s recent letter, 1,132 prisoners have never been released from their indeterminate sentence. I have spoken many times about the torture these prisoners face, so I will not bang on about it again, particularly in the light of all the examples given this morning.
I welcome the changes made by the last Government in shortening the licence period and all the good things that they introduced—which have been alluded to by previous speakers, so there is no need to repeat them. Concerted efforts are being made by the noble Lord and people in the Prison and Probation Service to make as many of these people as possible fit for release. It seems to me that this is contingent, at least in part, on the energy, effort and, frankly, money and human resources available to expedite this. Progress on releasing these prisoners is slow, to say the very least. UNGRIPP, the prisoners charity, estimates that, at this pace, IPP prisoners will still be in prison in 10 years’ time. But I fear that the situation is worse than that, and I will explain why in a minute.
I thank the Minister for his letter, together with Sir Nic Dakin MP, outlining all the changes for the better that are currently happening. But the conclusions they draw—especially the concept of resentencing resulting in a mass exodus of IPP prisoners—are faulty in my view, and several noble Lords alluded to this. For the 1,132, the torture continues. We—the Government—have treated these people so badly that many are damaged now and may never be deemed safe enough to be released.
The Minister has been most generous with his time for those of us wishing to see the end of this final chapter of this sorry saga. Last week, a cross-party group of us met to discuss the best course of action. We all argued strongly for resentencing, as has every noble Lord who has spoken this morning and reiterated these arguments. There is no need for me to reiterate them. Several suggestions have come forward for how this could be expedited. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, talked about the Justice Committee and all the thought, energy and effort that has gone into that. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, suggested that we do not impinge on the justice system any further and recruit some retired High Court judges and King’s Counsels.
I challenge the Minister on what we should do with those people who will never be fit for release. Is he seriously suggesting we leave them in limbo, in a constant state of psychological torture, for ever? What will the Government do if they will not conduct a resentencing exercise with these sad individuals? If any of these 1,132 were to be sentenced for the same crimes today, one sentence they would absolutely not be given is an indeterminate sentence for public protection. So why not be honest with them, resentence them and give them appropriate treatment for their current state of mental health, rather than leave them there and do nothing?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for introducing the Bill and enabling the House again to focus again on this important topic. We have heard many insightful and well-researched speeches. This is a tragically long-standing issue—I dealt with it when I was a Minister, and I remain grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular, and others, for the time they spent with me on the matter then.
You could make two speeches this morning from the Opposition Front Bench. One would be overtly political: it would say that IPP sentences were introduced by Labour and were and remain a disaster. It would say that this problem was created by a Labour Government, and it is up to this Labour Government to sort it out. It would say that we do not need more criminals on our streets. All of that would be true, but it is not the speech I propose to give. I will instead focus on what we can actually do, practically, to resolve this problem, and on what I regard as the real issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, reminded us, the previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who did so much good work in this area, called the present state of the IPP issue a
“stain on our criminal justice system”.
The same phrase, cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, was used by the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and they were both right. So I propose to look at the problem, look at how we can improve the position, and set out the response of the Opposition Front Bench to this Private Member’s Bill.
There are two important facts to begin with. First, IPP sentences were abolished by the then Conservative Government in 2012—the Lord Chancellor was the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Hazelmere, pointed out, the problem was that no transitional provisions were put in place. That happened 12 years ago, which is relevant—I will come back to that. Secondly, just under 1,100 IPP prisoners have never been released on licence and a further 1,600 or so were released on licence but have since been recalled to prison. Those two facts, taken together, remind us of the following points, which must be kept in mind as part of the debate.
First, those still in prison and who have never been released on licence were sentenced over 12 years ago. During that time, they will have been prepared for and attended several Parole Board hearings, and the Parole Board, which is independent and expert, will have concluded, on all the material before it, that it was not safe to release them. Secondly, for those prisoners and those released on licence and then recalled—again, because they were originally sentenced at least 12 years ago—unless their underlying crime was one of considerable seriousness, a resentencing exercise, even if it were possible, would likely result in their immediate release. Putting those two points together, that means that a resentencing exercise would likely result in the immediate release into the community of people whom the Parole Board had recently decided were still dangerous and should not be released. I suggest that we cannot easily contemplate that.
I will add a third point: a resentencing exercise would be logistically and practically difficult, not only because of the impact on judicial time but, more importantly, because of the fact that, in some—or perhaps many—cases, the underlying paperwork is unlikely to be available in full. Therefore, I suggest that a resentencing exercise, which is at the heart of the Bill, is not the answer—my noble friend Lord Moylan therefore correctly anticipated the position of the Opposition Front Bench. But that means that we need to identify what the answer is, because doing nothing is simply not an option.
Let me sketch out some principles. First, the focus must be on two separate groups. For the first group—those who have never been released—the focus must be to get them successfully through a Parole Board hearing. For the second group—those who have been released on licence—the focus must be to make sure that they are not recalled to prison or, if they are, to enable them to do better next time they are released: to get out and to stay out.
Secondly, we need to be clear-eyed about who we are dealing with. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that people did little more than steal a Mars bar and were just unlucky to receive an IPP sentence rather than a traditional determinate sentence. In fact, to have been sentenced to a IPP sentence in the first place, the trial judge must have concluded, under Section 229(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that there was
“a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm”
were the defendant to commit further offences—and not just any further offences. There was a list of specified offences in a schedule to the Act, including rape, murder, GBH with intent and so forth. In other words, the trial judge will have found as a fact that there was a significant risk of the offender killing, raping or seriously maiming someone else. That was the statutory test of dangerousness, which was a legal threshold to being given an IPP sentence in the first place.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I interrupt with trepidation, because my noble friend is such an excellent lawyer, and I am not a lawyer at all. However, am I not right in saying that, while that test did exist, it existed only in the second period when IPP sentences were imposed? It was very much a point of the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood that in the early years of the IPP sentence judicial discretion was almost nil, and the finding of fact was simply a matter of asking, “Have you committed this offence and previously committed another?”, both taken from two separate lists. I am not sure that all the prisoners who are still in jail and who have never been released would be covered by the point that my noble friend makes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I cannot get into all the detail because of time, but for those sentenced even earlier, in the first period, unless the underlying crime was really serious, you end up with effectively immediate release, in respect of people who have been determined by the Probation Service to still be dangerous. That is a real underlying problem.
That leads me to the third point, perhaps the most tragic in the entire debate. We have to confront the possibility, or probability—this is a terrible stain on our state—that for some people now in prison under an IPP sentence the reason they cannot effectively be released, and the reason they are failing Parole Board hearings, is because they have been in prison so long. They have become institutionalised. I am very sorry to say it, but it is a Kafkaesque situation—if Kafkaesque is the right word—and a stain on our justice system, but we have to be clear-eyed about the position that we are dealing with.
As we know, this matter was looked at by the Justice Select Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill. I am pleased to say that he is now, and deservedly so, Sir Bob Neill KC. The committee made two main recommendations. The first was on resentencing, which I have dealt with—and, with respect, we disagree with the committee on that point. Secondly, it suggested that the licence period be reduced—and here we are in full agreement. The old position was that you could not even apply to terminate the licence until a decade had passed. The committee recommended a reduction of the licence period to five years, while Lord Chancellor Chalk reduced it to three years, and added a presumption that it would lapse at the end of three years, unless there was a good reason to extend it. For those recalled to prison, he introduced a two-year licence period for those released after that initial recall, with an automatic lapse after two years, not a presumption. That structure is the best way in which to deal with this issue.
Lord Chancellor Chalk went further. He set in place programmes to encourage prisoners to be prepared well for the Parole Board hearings, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the work ongoing in relation to that—because that is the key to getting someone out on licence in the first place. He also introduced automatic referral to the Parole Board so that prisoners do not need to apply for release, but rather the case automatically comes before the Parole Board.
This is about balance between protecting the public, which any Government need to have at the forefront of their mind, while making sure that those subject to an IPP sentence are fairly dealt with. That means that we need to ensure that we do not release dangerous people into the community, but it also means that those who have been released and are no longer dangerous should not live with a sword of Damocles above their heads.
It is sometimes pointed out that those released on an IPP licence can reoffend. The truth is that lots of our released prisoners reoffend, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, either now or perhaps in a letter, with a comparison of the rate of reoffending of IPP prisoners with those released under other provisions. I would be especially keen to see the data comparing the reoffending rate of IPP prisoners released on licence to the reoffending rate of those released under the early release scheme introduced by the Government early this year, of which we have had not very much data. In due course, I would be interested to see that comparison, because I would not want IPP-released prisoners to be unfairly stigmatised when, in fact, we have a significant reoffending rate for prisoners generally.
I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We will support him in steps to ensure that those still subject to IPP sentences, those in prison, on licence, and on recall receive all the assistance they need.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble lord, Lord Woodley, of Wallasey, for securing this Second Reading of his Bill. The aims behind it are undoubtedly admirable, and I respect the way in which he and colleagues have put their case today, demonstrating the depth of their knowledge and their willingness to continue engaging constructively with the Government. In particular, I mention my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I value your Lordships’ continuing engagement on this matter, building on the IPP reforms legislated for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which this Government are implementing in full, and which has already reduced the numbers of people serving IPP sentences in the community by two-thirds.
I would not want to repeat what has already been said in the debate today, but I will set out the Government’s broad approach to IPP sentences and our position on the Bill. I say at the outset that I recognise the challenges faced by IPP offenders who remain in the system. As CEO of the Timpson Group, I met and employed 30 people who were serving IPP sentences. These are human beings we are talking about, and I am sure that noble Lords find it as difficult as I do to hear the details of individual cases when I visit prisons and sit in cells with IPP prisoners.
The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and I am determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders, especially the 2,694 still in prison, to finish their sentences. We are also clear that the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public. That was the thinking behind the measures that we took to alleviate pressure in our prisons and prevent the total breakdown of law and order in our country. We must never lose sight of that need to keep the public safe. Every offender still serving an IPP sentence in prison remains on our watch-list, and we have a duty of care to them.
While we must ensure that prisoners are treated fairly and given every opportunity to make progress towards their release, public protection must always be at the forefront of any action we take on this issue. That is what the public, and in particular the victims of IPP offenders, want, need and expect. It is right that IPP offenders are risk assessed and released only when it is determined that they can be safely managed in the community. It is also right that those determinations are made by the Parole Board. If resentencing were to take place, in line with what is proposed in this Bill, the Parole Board would no longer play that critical role—and in fact, its previous work in each case would be disregarded entirely.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released automatically. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance, whether for any or all IPP prisoners through any partial resentencing. As I set out when I repeated the Statement the Lord Chancellor made in the other place on 22 October, IPP sentences are not included as part of the wider recent independent sentencing review, as the review is looking at sentences which remain on the statute book.
I realise that this is a disappointment to noble Lords in favour of the Bill. However, I assure colleagues that we remain committed to making serious and meaningful progress, at pace, for those serving IPP sentences. To do so, we must focus on reducing their risk: this is the best way to move them closer to obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Wolfson and Lord Moylan, will be pleased to know that the first IPP annual report, which was delayed because of the general election, will be published today. It covers HMPPS’s activity on IPP sentences during the reporting period to March this year and contains a refreshed IPP action plan which emphasises the delivery of front-line services to help offenders reduce their risk.
As a starting point, offenders must have accurate, up-to-date and effective sentence plans which enable them to access support to make progress towards their rehabilitation. They also need to be in the right prisons—ones which can offer the services specified in their sentence plans. As things stand, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton made clear, around 30% of IPP offenders are not in appropriate settings. I am clear that this is not good enough and I am determined to address it as a matter of urgency, working with HMPPS to make sure that people are transferred to the right prisons wherever that is necessary for them to make progress. It can and it will improve.
We must also ensure that HMPPS knows where each IPP prisoner is on their journey through their sentence. Every prison region now has detailed information on its IPP cohort through a dedicated IPP data dashboard. We can use this information to create new tailored plans to ensure that they are in the best prison to access the interventions and services they need to aid their rehabilitation. For the first time, every IPP prisoner is being given an internal progress rating, reviewed every six months to monitor progression. This traffic light system will allow us to identify those never released and not engaged in a sentence plan, ensuring that we can direct resources to those who need it most. Each prisoner will also be regularly assessed by a range of experts through dedicated IPP progression panels to ensure that they have a clear path to release.
These are vital changes, which will ensure that people on the IPP sentence have the right sentence plans, understand what is required of them and face fewer barriers to making progress towards a safe release. In addition, I am pleased to confirm that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to include consideration of the IPP sentence in his independent review of offender health. This will help us to better understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.
I also reassure colleagues that this Government are committed to increasing accountability. The Lord Chancellor will lay the first statutory IPP annual report, under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, before Parliament next summer, to set out the work HMPPS has been doing to support those serving IPP sentences throughout the current reporting period. The report will highlight where sufficient progress is not being made and enable us to take action where necessary. We will continue to review the IPP action plan to ensure that it is delivering results and adapts to any opportunities to do more. This will include supporting those who have never been released and those who have been recalled to custody, both of which my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, highlighted.
Recall remains an important tool for keeping the public safe and there is no evidence to suggest that IPP offenders have been recalled unnecessarily. Indeed, contrary to the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation’s thematic review of IPP recalls concluded last year that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary to protect the public, albeit that in some cases it was acknowledged that better support could be provided when individuals are on licence outside prison, prior to recall being instigated.
Though improvements to our approach in prisons are clearly necessary, I am grateful to colleagues across HMPPS for everything they are doing to support IPP offenders. With continued support, all IPP prisoners for whom it is safe and appropriate can and will be released.
The idea of an expert resentencing panel was specifically mentioned by my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Woodley and Lady Blower, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Burt of Solihull. As I have said, the Government are determined to support those serving the IPP sentence to make progress towards safe releases, but I do not think it is fair or appropriate to raise false hope by setting up an expert panel on resentencing.
I recognise the proposal of my noble friend Lord Woodley, for a partial resentencing exercise. As your Lordships will appreciate, there would need to be a strong legal justification for treating one cohort of offenders differently from another serving the same sentence. Partial resentencing of a specific cohort would not address the Government’s public protection concerns and the vital role of the Parole Board.
My noble friend suggested resentencing those who have been released and who are now serving their sentence on licence in the community. These offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the Victims and Prisoners Act. These reforms provide for a much greater chance of earlier licence termination, either at the end of the reduced qualifying period or after the two-year automatic period, while also enabling them to access the support to successfully reintegrate into society. There is also no requirement for them to prove again, once in the community, that they are still safe to be released. At the end of the qualifying period, the Parole Board will simply consider whether the licence should be terminated; otherwise, it will terminate automatically, so long as the person is not recalled in the following two years.
My noble friends Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett also questioned why the Government will not establish an expert advisory committee to advise on the operation of a resentencing exercise. This is not a new issue and your Lordships have debated it many times, including during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act in the last Parliament. Despite the expertise across this House and elsewhere, nobody has been able to identify a way of resentencing those serving the IPP sentence in a way that would not involve releasing offenders who the independent Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. Again, the Government would not want to give false hope to those serving the sentence. I think that establishing an expert advisory panel would run that risk.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett spoke about legal challenges to the IPP sentence and the possibility of setting up a panel to expedite IPP cases through the Parole Board. There have been multiple applications to the Court of Appeal since the introduction of the IPP sentence, both successful and unsuccessful. Recently appealed cases have not set a new precedent and were for specific legal reasons. Individual cases do not warrant a full review of all IPP sentenced individuals for the purposes of speeding up the parole process or supporting the Court of Appeal and, crucially, this would not have an impact on the Parole Board’s assessment of the release test.
Reviewing IPP cases for consideration at the Court of Appeal would be a large undertaking, which would encroach on the independence of the judiciary and effectively replicate the role the court already provides. The Parole Board reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly. The assessment as to whether the statutory release test is met is required at each review and a prior sift would be ineffective as, legally, every case must be reviewed by the Parole Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, raised the challenges around recall and asked about the differences between recalls and reoffending levels of those serving the IPP sentence and those on other sentences. Regrettably, we know that this cohort of offenders does reoffend and are recalled when their risk cannot be safely managed in the community. The threshold for the recall of IPP offenders is significantly higher than for determinate sentence offenders, requiring there to be a link to the behaviour surrounding the index offence before a recall can be issued. I will, however, write to him soon with available figures.
Mental health and preventing harm or suicide were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is a tragedy when someone takes their own life and our thoughts go out to their loved ones. It is crucial that we provide the right interventions at the right time to prevent people harming themselves, and we are working closely with healthcare partners to that end.
Those who have a severe mental health need and require detention under the Mental Health Act are referred and assessed to determine whether transfer to hospital is needed. The Mental Health Bill, introduced on 6 November, includes vital reforms to support people with severe mental illness in the criminal justice system. It aims to speed up access to specialist in-patient care, ensuring that offenders, including IPP prisoners, and defendants with severe mental health needs can access appropriate and timely support in the most appropriate way.
The UN special rapporteur’s call for IPP sentences to be reviewed was talked about by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Blower. I met Dr Edwards a fortnight ago and set out, as I have today, the work we are doing through the IPP action plan to boost support and make progress for IPP offenders.
In closing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for continuing to shine a light on the situation faced by IPP offenders. I share his concerns and his compassion. I was very pleased to meet him and several colleagues last week to discuss this important issue and I hope noble Lords will take up my offer to meet regularly to continue those discussions. It is very important to me to continue to engage with all stakeholders and to understand their concerns and perspectives on the IPP sentence. That is why I will be attending the next HMPPS IPP external stakeholder challenge group meeting in December, where I look forward to meeting more of the campaign groups and independent bodies which have a strong interest in improving outcomes for those serving the IPP sentence.
While the Government cannot support the Bill today, we agree that everything must be done to support those serving IPP sentences. I am working with HMPPS and the Parole Board to continue making progress, but I realise there is much more to do. Any action we take on this issue must and will be taken swiftly, while upholding our first duty of protecting the public. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
A lot of what the Minister has said was reasonable and progress, but I did not get a sense that he is responding to what some of us called this Kafkaesque situation. He said that it is not safe or appropriate to release some people. Does he accept that he is not really conveying that he grasps that these people are victims of the state? The cruel injustice and psychological torture they have suffered are partially the fault of the state. If this is not to be added to the list of other scandals, something must be done which may be outwith the scale of other criminal justice challenges. I did not really get a sense that he sees it in that dimension.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point. I believe in the IPP action plan. I spent a lot of time reviewing it with colleagues and I want to engage with it for all those 2,964 people serving IPP sentences so that they are in the right prison and get the right support. My priority is to support HMPPS colleagues carrying out the action plan, because that is the best route to get these people out of prison.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their thoughtful, enlightening and informative contributions, which have outlined the tragedy and scandal that is undoubtedly out there. The Minister’s contribution leaves a void in my mind: we are still not treating the prisoners or their families as an absolute priority and with the respect they deserve. There is no doubt as we sit here today that many prisoners’ families will be watching or listening to this debate. They, like me, genuinely believe that this is as big a scandal as the Post Office and infected blood scandals, terrible as they were.
There are 90 dead—not nine or one, which would be bad enough, but 90. Many of them unfortunately took their own lives as a consequence of having no hope, as, in fairness, the Minister just mentioned. Thousands are sitting in prison with no hope. It is unbelievable.
I listened with interest to the Minister, a man I have a great deal of respect for. I absolutely acknowledge his actions before he came into this place, employing, as he said, 30 IPP prisoners, all of whom he had no problems with and who were decent employees and did their job—those might not be his exact words, but he knows what I am saying. I know that he knows what he is talking about, and I know that he cares. That makes his disappointing answer even sadder.
The Minister kept saying that the first thing we need to do is make sure that the public are safe while putting in place a variety of changes, many of which we all welcome and can see the benefits of right now, as he mentioned. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that our system at the moment, compared to what he thinks we should try to do—and I believe he is truthful in what he says—is not fit for purpose.
The Minister had the decency to introduce me to one of his senior Parole Board people last week. I thank him again for that, but even that gentleman said that, if they had a person out for recall who was put back into prison, it could take 12 to 18 months at a minimum before their case would be reheard, irrespective of the fact that they may already have served 10, 11, 12, 15 or 16 years in prison. With the greatest respect, where is the duty of care not just to the general public, which I will come back to, but to those prisoners, many of whom, as I said earlier and the noble Baroness just said, have become mentally unstable as a consequence of their treatment? Where is the duty of care to them and their families?
The Minister has not given any logical or legal reason why he cannot look at partial resentencing. He said that he does not think it would be fair for a particular reason, but where is the legal problem or impediment in resentencing those two groups found to be safe by the Parole Board? If there is such a legal opinion stopping him doing it, I would be most grateful if he could show it to us. If you cannot stop it, with the greatest respect, all of us should stop waffling here and start to do the right thing. As that old adage goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way. With a genuine Minister like the noble Lord, there is a way for us all to try to help, but we will have to wait and see.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies and Lord Wolfson, and others mentioned the mental state and health of these prisoners after having gone through such turmoil in recent years. Here lies the other problem with the proposals on the table. When people have given up and lost the plot because of what has happened to them, how on earth could they ever turn around and be fit to get through the Parole Board’s criteria? There is no way they could, to be quite honest. Nevertheless, I look forward to this Bill being given a Second Reading.
Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to reintroduce this Private Member’s Bill on women, peace and security. I first tabled it in 2022, but sadly it did not have time to progress to the other place before Parliament was prorogued in October 2023.
As many noble Lords know, I have long been outspoken on many of the topics that fall within the Bill and I draw their attention to my register of interests: I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security; I am a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative; I am the honorary colonel of Outreach Group; and I set up, and chair, the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
I begin by formally congratulating the Minister on his appointment. I was heartened by his response to my Written Question HL343, in which he stated:
“Empowering women and girls and preventing the conflicts that disproportionately impact on them is a key priority for this new government”.
I know that in opposition he was a champion on this agenda.
Some may question the necessity for a Bill on this. As we see the conflicts of today raging on our TV screens, especially in Ukraine and Gaza, I wonder where the women are. Why do we not hear their voices? Of course, there are many countries where other conflicts are raging that we do not see so much of in our media—Sudan, Yemen and Syria, to name but a few—with women suffering but unseen and unheard.
The foreword of the UK’s fifth national action plan, published in February last year, stated:
“From Afghanistan, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Russian occupied parts of Ukraine, it is plain to see how conflict and insecurity have a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often women are also locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and build peace”.
While generally the UK has been robust on this agenda, at times there has been slippage. Enshrining this in law will mean that the women, peace and security agenda is in the DNA of all foreign and defence policy, is not dependent on ministerial good will and cannot be ignored. The Bill puts into law the commitments that the Government have already signed up to under UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the subsequent 10 UN Security Council resolutions on the WPS agenda. It is not asking for a new or onerous commitment.
The ground-breaking UN Security Council Resolution 1325, introduced in 2000 with much support from the UK, recognised the terrible and disproportionate effects that conflict has on women and addressed this through its four pillars of prevention, protection, participation and relief and recovery. This and the subsequent UN Security Council resolutions around the subject have tried to address the situation, but we all recognise that this is still a work in progress, with much more needing to be done. Progress has been too slow.
Today more than ever, many women are experiencing a devastating rollback of hard-won rights, services and democratic freedoms—from abortion rights in the US and rape used as a weapon of war in Ukraine, to the gender apartheid in Afghanistan, with the Taliban issuing over 50 edicts to suppress women’s and girls’ rights, returning to the oppression of the 1990s and, most recently, making it illegal for their voices to be heard in public.
The UK’s work around women, peace and security and preventing sexual violence in conflict are two initiatives where the UK has led the world. As Britain continues to redefine its role in the world in the wake of Brexit and the pandemic, it is a time to build on all the investment and good work that has gone before and fight the growing challenges to gender equality. The Bill that I propose today is another tool through which we can demonstrate our commitment and, more importantly, implementation of our promises in this area.
With only two clauses, this short Bill seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will have a duty to have regard to the national action plan on women, peace and security, which we are committed to under UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Clause 1(2) requires an annual report to Parliament on progress in relation to the national action plan. This would formalise what the department currently does and would not create extra reporting burdens.
Clause 1(3) does what it says on the tin and puts in place the key duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the NAP when “formulating or implementing” government policy “in relation to foreign affairs, defence or related matters”.
Clause 1(4) stipulates several considerations for which the Secretary of State must have particular regard. For example, paragraphs (e) to (h) cover issues around peace processes. Data from the Council on Foreign Relations show that roughly seven out of every 10 peace processes from 1992 to 2019 did not include women mediators or women signatories. Of 18 peace agreements reached in 2022, only one was signed or witnessed by a representative of a women’s group or organisation. In 2022, women participated as conflict party negotiators or delegates in four of five active UN-led or co-led peace processes. However, women’s representation stood at only 16%, a further drop compared to 19% in 2021 and 23% in 2020, all of which remain well below the peak of 37.1% in 2015.
Evidence that gender equality is essential to building peace and security has grown substantially since UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was introduced. In fact, involving women increases the chances of a longer-lasting and more sustainable peace, yet they continue to be excluded.
We live in a globally interconnected world. War zones are poor zones. The Institute for Economics and Peace estimates that every $1 of peacebuilding would lead to a $16 reduction in the cost of armed conflict. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said that there is a
“direct relationship between greater investment in weapons and greater insecurity and inequality for women”.
Sadly, it is apparently not obvious to many that you cannot build peace by leaving half the population out: look at Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. We should not have to justify women being included; we should ask the men to justify their exclusion. Ambassador Barbara Woodward at the UN Security Council highlighted the importance and value of women’s economic inclusion for maintaining peace and stabilising peace in post-conflict settings. She argued for
“gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.
Paragraphs (d) and (i) of Clause 1(4) relate to conflict-related sexual violence. Do noble Lords know that none of the ceasefire agreements reached between 2018 and 2020 included gender provisions or the prohibition of sexual violence? Gender-based violence is one of the most systemic and widespread human rights violations of our time, with one in three women worldwide experiencing physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.
There were 2,455 UN-verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence in 2022. We all know that there is much underreporting, so the actual figures are hugely more. Gender-based violence is rooted in gender inequality. It threatens the lives and well-being of girls and women and prevents them from accessing opportunities that are fundamental to both freedom and development.
The Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative was inspiring, and I welcomed the conference held under the Conservative Government in 2022. This initiative was always going to be a marathon, not a sprint. More than 50 countries and the UN signed the UK-led declaration, and 40-odd made national commitments outlining the steps they would take. Do the Government have any assessment of how all those commitments are progressing?
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, reports of sexual violence committed by Russian soldiers against civilians escalated. In the DRC, sexual violence continues to rage, and I recently had the honour of meeting the inspirational Dr Mukwege, who told us that 83,000 brutally raped women and girls had been repaired at Panzi Hospital, with ages ranging from five into their 80s. Sexual violence occurs in every theatre of war. Including these stipulated considerations in the Bill will help keep conflict-related sexual violence front and centre of our diplomatic, security and conflict work. Meanwhile, the wording of Clause 1(5) ensures that the UK will also seek to keep the pressure up on all these issues when working with other multinational organisations.
It is not enough to pledge our commitment to the women, peace and security agenda without delivering meaningful change for all women and girls on the ground, living through the daily realities of war. As I have said before, we must not fall into the trap of mistaking process for progress, status for impact, or rhetoric for action.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will not mind me gently reminding him of his words from the Third Reading debate on the Bill last July, when he said:
“Things do change and Governments change. Hopefully, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I can work together to ensure that the sort of changes she is advocating become law”.—[Official Report, 14/7/23; col. 1981.]
I trust he is not going to dash my hope this afternoon.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
Next year is the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the 30th anniversary of the Beijing platform for action. I believe that the Bill is the perfect tool to demonstrate to the international community the UK’s commitment and leadership on this agenda. Passing the Bill will legislate for all future Governments our commitment to have systematic gender consideration and responsiveness in UK foreign and defence policy. By sealing this agenda into legislation, the UK can be an example and encourage other countries to follow suit.
I hope that Members from all sides of this House can support and work with me to make the Bill a reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on her Private Member’s Bill, which I heartily support. Over recent years I have had the privilege of working closely with the noble Baroness on issues concerning violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally. I draw attention to my own entry in the register of interests: I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. I am also on the task force on war crimes for Ukraine and co-chair the task force set up to recover the children who have been taken into Russia without consent.
IBAHRI has held a number of parliamentary inquiries, provided the secretariat and written the reports concerning a number of the most horrifying situations affecting women. Noble Lords have already heard about them from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I am not going to rehearse them again, but we need to have as a constant in this House the fact of what is happening in Afghanistan. It was a shameful business that we withdrew from Afghanistan, and many women who had taken up positions that were clearly an affront to the Taliban were placed in dire straits and mortal danger.
Afghanistan now is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world for women. They have been banned from public life and cannot receive an education, work or have recourse to justice. Healthcare is very limited. Recent decrees have banned women from speaking outside the home and singing even inside, if it can be heard outside. There is no singing, and basically no life.
Between 1 January 2022 and 30 January 2024, Afghan Witness, with which IBAHRI works closely, recorded 700 claims, all of gender-based violence suffered by hundreds of women and girls throughout the country. Those are the ones that have been reported. Of course, the shame and stigma associated with sexual violence and abuse are often a restraint on people making any kind of complaint to anybody. These complaints have been reported by social media users, journalists, activists and media outlets in touch with women there. At IBAHRI, we are one of those organisations.
We have held an inquiry here into what should be clearly described as gender apartheid. There is already the crime of gender persecution, and that is certainly going on in Afghanistan, but gender apartheid goes much further. It affects all women; it is institutionalised. That is one of the shameful and shocking things about it.
A similar sort of thing goes on in Iran. We looked closely at the problems facing Iranian women; noble Lords will know about the demonstrations of the many young women who took to the streets after the murder of a young woman. We have been working with the women lawyers who have acted on behalf of people seeking to exercise their rights, and the women lawyers—as well as their clients—end up in jail. We are seeing this happen worldwide.
I want to make a number of basic supportive comments with regard to the Bill. We need to resist and prevent these things happening, because it is now understood that there is invariably sexual violence in war. I can hear the Whip’s coughs, but I want to complete this thought. It is vital that we provide assistance. There is a global piece of work being done by the Global Survivors Fund—for example, in Ukraine—to provide supportive work and therapy for women who have suffered this, because you will never be able to take those cases to courts unless the women are able to have their trauma dealt with. I ask the Government to consider supporting the Global Survivors Fund.
Finally, we have to have women at the peace tables. I strongly urge that we do not have meetings with the Taliban where there is no woman present because the Taliban insist on it. It is unacceptable. It has already happened a number of times when our Government have done that, and it should not be taking place.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and her work over many years. Your Lordships have already passed an earlier version of her Bill, and I am sure we will do so again.
As the noble Baroness so cogently laid out, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by conflict, and conflicts are on the rise. Climate change and the migration that it is driving—which is likely to intensify —adds a further threat. Poverty has always rendered women and girls particularly vulnerable, and we know that rape is used as a weapon of war. Internationally, it has been recognised that women have too often not been involved in peace processes, which the UN has sought to address through Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions, and post-conflict measures to ensure that, as in Rwanda, women are well represented in parliament.
It is an ongoing struggle, as we have heard. The Bill seeks to ensure that the UK leads in promoting the participation of women in peacebuilding, conflict resolution and prevention efforts, and in protecting women and girls from violence. The United Kingdom is the penholder for women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, and it is therefore right that we take a leading role on this issue.
There has been some criticism of the UK’s efforts in this regard. The merger of DfID with the FCO was a major distraction, and NGOs report that short-term planning focuses on immediate relief rather than the long-term resilience needed to build sustainable peace. That reflects why it is worth putting the Bill into place.
We also see absolutely the lowest depths in Afghanistan, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hodgson. We heard this morning about the treatment of a woman in Iran, who is in a clinic because she would not wear a hijab. We also face an escalating backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, as we saw in the American elections. We know about the right-wing push-back on sexual and reproductive rights, and the way in which such groups are actively curtailing women’s rights in Africa. What will now happen with the US programmes? Trump took them backwards in his previous Administration and looks set to do so again. Respecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls is vital to their overall position.
Even the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women has to battle every year not to go backwards. Can the Minister outline how SRHR is addressed in conflict situations? Can he assure us that the UK still adheres to the principle that abortion services should be offered in cases where international humanitarian law trumps local laws—for example, where a woman has been raped in conflict? We established that over a decade ago and I trust that our policy on this is unchanged. Can he update us on what support is being given to women and girls in Afghanistan? We also hear terrible stories from Sudan, so can he update us on what support is being provided there? What support, if any, is being offered to women and girls in the terrible conditions now pertaining in Gaza?
I wish the noble Baroness success with her Bill. I hope that she will see it speed through the Commons. As a result of what she said, I expect the Minister to say that the Government will now back this Bill. I look forward to his response.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I support this vital Bill and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for her dedication to women, peace and security. This legislation presents a clear opportunity to address the persistent challenges that obstruct the empowerment and safety of women, both here and globally.
Today, we live in a world where cyber threats, violence and disinformation campaigns are routinely deployed against women, especially those in leadership and public roles. This digital age, with all its potential for progress, has sadly also become a tool for oppression: women in prominent positions face unprecedented levels of harassment and intimidation, and falsehoods are spread to damage their reputations. We must consider this when drafting laws meant to protect women and uphold their roles as leaders in our society.
The women, peace and security agenda aligns closely with the United Nations sustainable development goals, particularly the principle of leaving no one behind. Sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved if half of humanity is systematically excluded. A society that sidelines women is one that deprives itself of potential stability and resilience. As we consider the Bill, we must remember that peace and security are possible only when every individual, irrespective of gender, has a stake in their community and nation.
A cornerstone of the Bill is the emphasis on participation. Women must have meaningful roles in decision-making processes, from local governance to national legislatures. The UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security rightly prioritises that. University of Cambridge researchers have recently assessed gender-based participation in 11 countries across Asia, Africa and South America. The findings revealed stark realities. As of 2022, female representation in Parliament stood at just 15% in India, 20% in Bangladesh, under 20% in Guatemala, 23% in Kenya and Malawi, and as low as 5% in Sri Lanka. Yet there are encouraging signs, too. India has now mandated one-third female representation in its Lok Sabha. South Africa has 47% female representation, and here in the UK our recent election has brought female representation to 41%. Putting the commitment of the Bill into legislation will reinforce Britain’s position as a global advocate for gender equality. This is not just the right thing to do morally; it strengthens our influence on the world stage and fosters a more peaceful, secure future for women everywhere.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill and urge others to do so as well. Let us send a clear message that the United Kingdom stands firm in its commitment to gender equality and sustainable peace.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on progressing the Bill again to Second Reading. It is an important Bill and I hope that my remarks will illustrate why.
Despite an international spotlight being shone on female participation in security and peace across the world, particularly since the UN resolutions referred to in the Bill, there has been no significant increase in the number of women participating in peace negotiations. In some areas of the world, the opposite is happening, and there has been a concerted effort to roll back the rights of women and girls. Afghanistan is the most obvious example of that, and the House is aware of the latest bizarre diktat from the Taliban, which said that women are forbidden from listening to other women’s voices. Just when you think it cannot get any worse for women in Afghanistan, it does. I hope that we can find the time in this House to have a full debate on the plight of women in Afghanistan in the near future.
The Bill puts a duty on the Government to have regard to the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and an annual report must be laid before Parliament on progress made during the year. Our current action plan covers the period 2023-27. I will concentrate on the first strategic objective of the plan: decision-making and the need to increase
“women’s meaningful participation, leadership and representation in decision-making processes”.
From my own experience in Northern Ireland, the more representative the process is, the more effective it is. Involving women in peacebuilding is not just a nice thing to do; evidence shows that it leads to a greater chance of securing a sustainable peace. Indeed, empowering women to participate meaningfully—that word is very important—in peace processes makes the resulting agreements 35% more likely to be in place 15 years later. For that reason alone, having more women involved, never mind it being the right thing to do, is absolutely necessary.
There is a wealth of experience in Northern Ireland in peacebuilding and the involvement of women in the process at all levels. For good or ill, I was involved in negotiations for over two decades. Did we always get it right? Of course not, but, as my bishop reminded me at our Remembrance Day service last Sunday, diplomacy rarely succeeds on the first, second or third occasions; it needs patience, resilience and the ability to look for a chink of light, however small. I am pleased that the fifth national action plan references the need to highlight and better champion the UK expertise of women peacebuilders in Northern Ireland. There are many great examples of women in Northern Ireland not only helping to make agreements happen but fighting for and sustaining better relations, understanding and reconciliation.
Peacemaking is not an event. It is a continuing process. I want to highlight just two examples of the continuing work of women in Northern Ireland; they show, I think, the experience that we have. The first example is Kilcooley Women’s Centre in Bangor, County Down. This group is made up of women wanting to make a difference in a pocket of deprivation in an otherwise affluent area of North Down. They work with children and their mothers from as early on as possible; in doing so, they make a real, positive difference.
One of those who was heavily involved in the group was Gina Murray, a straight-talking, proud, working-class woman who, through no fault of her own, had tragedy visit her in a devastating way. Gina’s daughter, Leanne, was one of the nine victims of the no-warning IRA bomb that exploded on the Shankill Road in October 1993. Leanne was just 13 years old. That incident devastated many families. Gina struggled and campaigned for justice for the rest of her life. However, she refused to allow her personal loss to define her; instead, she put her energy into the women’s centre in Kilcooley. She was an effective advocate. I fondly remember many meetings when she was not afraid to put her point across. I am sad to say that Gina passed away early last month; I want to remember her as a campaigner for justice, not just for her beloved daughter but for other victims of violence, whether domestic or terrorism-related.
The second example is the First Steps Women’s Centre in Dungannon, County Tyrone, where local women work with newcomer women and provide them with support, such as English lessons, language classes and job interview support. The work that goes on there should be recognised.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to take the national action plan forward—in particular, having more women involved in peace negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the return of this Bill—the sequel. Let us hope that it does not need a trilogy. I hope that the Bill will carry the full support of your Lordships’ House, including that of the Minister. It is of immense regret to me that we were unable to see a previous version of it complete its journey through the legislative process but, at this juncture, I congratulate and commend my dear and noble friend Lady Hodgson on her perseverance in bringing it forward once again. My noble friend knows of my personal commitment previously, as today, and of my full support for both her efforts and this Bill. I am sure that the Government will ensure its secure passage on to the statute book.
I say this to the Minister: I know that arguments against the Bill may be presented. He may ask whether it is the right vehicle. To my mind, it is. He may point out what officials have said to him previously about the Bill possibly limiting or hindering the UK’s ability to progress this agenda on the world stage. To my mind, it does quite the opposite.
On a few occasions when I was Minister of State at the FCDO, I learned about the real, positive ability of challenge—challenge to officials and, at times, even to the person who sat above me: the Foreign Secretary. Why? Because it is absolutely the right thing to do. Let us be clear: the provisions of this Bill are the policy of successive UK Governments. They are a statement of aspirations while highlighting the UK’s strong leadership on this important agenda over many years, which has, as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, seen real momentum since the passing of the landmark UN Resolution 1325.
Turning to the Bill itself, I want to be practical. Clause 1 incorporates the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and encompasses UN resolutions. I give a tick to that; there are no objections. Secondly, the Bill talks of annual reporting—a personal bugbear of the Minister when he was in opposition. I know that he loves annual reporting, so there should be no objection to that either. Thirdly, there is a requirement for Government Ministers to have regard to the NAPs. Seeing how much time the FCDO and the MoD spend working together to deliver them, that seems like absolute common sense to me.
The Bill seeks to enshrine the strengthening of human rights, especially for the most vulnerable women and girls. I give a tick to this as well. I know that the Minister shares the same sentiments, focus and priorities around conflict-related sexual violence, where the UK has led the way. On tackling impunity and stigma, the UK has led the way; my noble friend Lady Anelay, whom we shall hear from later, introduced measures on it. The UK has also led the way on protecting and safeguarding the collection of evidence. I remember introducing the Murad code at the UN Security Council, together with the incredible, courageous Nadia Murad. On working with survivors and putting them at the heart of our approach, the UK has led the way. We have heard about the great work of Dr Mukwege. We have been absolutely committed to staff training, women mediators and peacebuilding. I recall launching the Women Mediators across the Commonwealth network. We have seen people such as Mossarat Qadeem, who went into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to take on the Taliban and extremists. She met the mothers and stopped suicide bombing—a real deliverable.
There is nothing in this Bill that cannot be supported practically. It enshrines government policy and the strategic direction of travel. Importantly, it puts our collective commitment, notwithstanding the desires and focus of the Minister—indeed, of all of us—on a statutory footing. If any provisions need to be amended, notwithstanding her valiant efforts, I know that my noble friend Lady Hodgson stands ready. I stand ready —indeed, we all do—to support the Minister in ensuring that we can make those amendments to make this Bill fit for purpose. There is nothing in the technical elements of the Bill that should not be taken forward.
I have some final comments. Four months into the tenure of the new Government, I implore the Minister, who I know is supportive, to ensure that the Government do the right thing and support my noble friend’s Bill. Ultimately, this Bill does the right things: ensuring that women are at the heart of ending conflict; preventing conflict in the first place; standing up for the brave survivors of sexual violence; and, ultimately, furthering the cause of our collective desire for peace and security. Today, the Minister can show that the Government support those things and let the UK lead the way once again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the absolutely expert contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad; I agree with everything he said. I join the universal commendations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on both her tenacity and practicality in bringing this simple but important Bill forward.
I also commend the noble Baroness’s timing because, last night, I was at the Magnitsky Human Rights Awards here in London, as a number of noble Lords taking part in this debate were. We heard personal tales of enormous courage and conviction from women and men who are doing so much to fight for peace and security in their communities. It is a struggle, of course. Such awards can mark only a few people. So many women and girls around the world show that same courage and conviction. This Bill is a humble but important recognition of that fact; I join the call saying, “Surely the Government can accept this Bill”.
There is an important point to make about the Magnitsky Human Rights Awards and, indeed, the whole existence of Magnitsky sanctions. They were driven by civil society. The leadership did not come from Governments, as is the case in so many areas of human rights: Governments follow where civil society and campaigning women and men lead. This Bill is a way of ensuring that those voices can be heard.
In conducting this debate at this time, I must, in talking about women, peace and security, talk about the situation in Gaza. The figures out this month from the UN Human Rights Office state that close to 70% of the victims verified by it were women and children. This is in the context of what the office has described as “unprecedented levels” of international rights violations. Just yesterday, the UN Special Committee said that Israel’s policies and practices in Gaza are
“consistent with the characteristics of genocide”.
I cannot see how the national action plan can possibly be congruent with continuing any arms sales to Israel.
I turn to an issue that has not yet been raised but must be—it is an issue of long-term interest for me—which is the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nearly 6 million people have been killed there since 1996 and it has the world’s largest population of internally displaced persons: 7.1 million people. The province of North Kivu is particularly impacted; it is an area of massive long-term violence against women and girls, in particular sexual violence. I note the MSF report We Are Calling for Help, which acknowledges that 2024 saw a marked increase in violence. I want to make a quick point, which I will come back to: the conflict in that area is driven by the fight for control of the important raw minerals tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold, which are collectively known as 3TG.
The national action plan does not seem to square with the Government’s approach in the UK strategic defence review. As I have said in other contexts, it separates out the issues of defence from the broader issues of security, when they surely have to be considered together. As the NGO Rethinking Security has commented, we live in a world
“of complex interconnected crises from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa”.
For the sake of women, girls and everyone, we need a much greater focus on de-escalation.
Finally, I come back to two points. Parliamentary scrutiny can very importantly join up connections and make connections that a siloed Government might not. The Minister might not have thought about the action plan that we are discussing here and the action plan on antimicrobial resistance, but I point to the World Health Organization’s recent guidance on the key gender disparities in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of drug-resistant infections. I also point to the need to join these issues up. I mentioned the issues of IT and the DRC. Recently in your Lordships’ House we debated the digital assets Bill, and I was the only female speaker. We need to ensure that women are always in the room for all these issues relating to peace and security.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on reintroducing the Bill and campaigning over many years on this issue. I declare my interests as in the register. I would like to pick up on a couple of points made in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the children stolen from Ukraine by the Russian army and the Russian authorities. This is a very good example, right here and now, of why we need to ensure that passionate, caring voices are engaged in any negotiations that are taking place to bring an end to the conflict. If the men dominating the discussions in the White House and those engaged in Moscow dominate the discussions on what might or might not bring an end to the war in Ukraine over the coming weeks and months, I am certain that those 20,000 children will remain in Russia, a country in which they do not belong, with their Ukrainian identity removed, and will not be returned home wherever the lines are drawn on the map. We, as the United Kingdom, should be standing up for those children and insisting, with other European partners, that they are part of any deal that is reached to bring an end to that conflict. Last week I held a screening here in Parliament of a brilliant new documentary film, “After the Rain”. I hope that it gets an Oscar nomination but also that many thousands of people see it and raise their voices over the coming weeks.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on raising the important issue of women in negotiations. Other Members of your Lordships’ House have raised that in the debate as well. I have had the pleasure, over the last 10 years, to be actively engaged in the Bangsamoro peace protest in Muslim Mindanao in the Philippines. I believe that was the first peace agreement in the world where the negotiations were chaired by a woman peace negotiator. She is from Malaysia and still engaged to this day. That process has continued, with some outstanding women involved in the Bangsamoro interim parliament that is building the institutions that will secure the peace process for the future. That is a good, concrete example of why having women involved not just in negotiations but in the implementation of peace agreements is so critical.
When I first heard about this Bill, I had some reservations. I am not one for legislating for the sake of it. When I hear about a Bill that will just legislate for things that we are doing already, I worry that perhaps we are overdoing it. But I have become convinced over these last few years, since the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, first made the proposal, that this Bill is essential. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said. He was a powerful champion of these issues inside government and clearly will be a very energetic and demonstrative advocate for them on the Opposition Benches.
There has been too much inconsistency on this over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was consistent, but his colleagues were not. We have seen support for conflict prevention and peacebuilding from the United Kingdom diminish and reduce over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, built on the good work done by the previous Labour Government, but in the past decade the budget has been reduced. The proportion of the budget being spent on conflict prevention and peacebuilding has been reduced. The references and the energy that we have given to this at the highest levels of the UK Government have been reduced, and I have a slight suspicion that above the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I believe is very passionate about these issues and will do his very best, there are still some issues on this with the new Government, if the rumours about the reductions in the Integrated Security Fund are true.
We need to put these measures into legislation and ensure that Governments are forced to report, act and have regard to this, regardless of the personalities who hold the positions around the Cabinet table. This Bill has my full support.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on introducing her Bill. She was at ABColombia’s meeting last Wednesday, as I was, so she will know what I am going to say.
Colombia is a country that has suffered for decades from war. Women have disproportionately suffered. In 2016 peace accords were introduced, and they have held though several years and several elections. The UK has been very supportive of that process both morally and practically. I was pleased on Wednesday to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, who spoke about her recent visit. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is about to speak, has also been very involved with Colombia. But why has Colombia been omitted from the national action plan of the 12 focus countries? Although it is not currently at war, the peace accords are still very fragile and I feel that it deserves to be one of the 12 focus countries so that we can continue with that support.
The second issue that the UK could rectify to help Colombia and the peace accords is to terminate the UK bilateral trade investment treaty, which comes to the end of its first 10-year term this year. You would think that a bilateral investment deal would help to diversify opportunities for Colombians away from coca. Some time ago I was fortunate to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Colombia, which was particularly concerned to see how that diversification could take place and what challenges rural areas faced in finding other economic opportunities. Such an investment agreement sounds helpful, but the reality has turned out to be very different. UK companies, particularly the mining companies Glencore, Anglo American and others, have used this deal very cynically. They have challenged Colombia on environmental issues, the human rights of indigenous people, human rights generally and minimum wage legislation. Whenever they find that Colombia is trying to protect its environment or people in ways that inhibit their wishes, they use the investor-state dispute settlement to sue. Last year Colombia’s pending ISDS claims totalled more than $13 billion. That money is desperately needed to further the peace accords. The country wants to invest in rebuilding in line with those accords, but this treaty is draining the resources that are needed to do so. Next week the Government’s Trade Minister is visiting Colombia. Will he join with the Colombian Government in terminating this agreement? At last Wednesday’s meeting we heard from the ambassador that that is what Colombia wants too.
We should support Colombia in every way possible. Those two simple measures would really help in that process.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hodgson on getting through the ballot and bringing forward the Bill today. Like the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I am not one for having legislation just for the sake of it when commitments have already been made; but, also like him, I strongly support the Bill, because the strength of it is that, for the first time, it will make sure that commitments are future-proofed.
The UK has a proud record of supporting this agenda. It has done so for many years, including by setting up a network of women mediators—work in which I was involved some years ago when I was Minister at the FCDO and the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. The Minister will know what is coming next. I ask again whether he can today give us some indication on when the Government will announce the appointment of a new Prime Minister’s special representative.
My noble friend’s Bill is similar to its previous iteration but not the same. I note the additions to the text in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (g) of Clause 1(4). I do not object to those at all—far from it. All my noble friend’s additions to the text improve the clarity of the need to have regard to the range of support for gender equality obligations in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, reparation for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, and training for all staff on peacekeeping missions, which should include human rights, women’s rights and gender-based rights. When I was at the FCDO, I had the privilege of visiting many peacekeeping missions across Africa—how I wish the word “many” did not have to be there. When the Minister responds to this debate, I would be grateful if he could update the House on the progress the UK has made in ensuring that the peacekeeping troops have such training.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson has steadfastly led the way for Back-Benchers to be kept informed on all these issues and to meet, listen to and, above all, learn from survivors of conflict and gender-based violence. I am most grateful to her. My only question relates to the drafting of Clause 1(4)(e), which is exactly the same text as in her previous Bill. This calls for
“systematic recognition and participation of sufficient women in delegations to support peace processes that are supported by the United Kingdom including processes led by the United Nations”.
Could my noble friend describe what “sufficient” means in this context? For example, does she intend that the Secretary of State should be permitted to use her or his discretion to decide that on a case-by-case basis, or is there another thought on that?
Earlier on, we heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad and others about the Minister’s responses when he was leading for the Opposition on the original Bill, way back in 2003. That seems a long while ago. Yes, Governments change and I think he said, sotto voce, “Things change”. But some things do not change and one thing that does not is the absolute importance of having this Bill on the statute book. I support it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the admirable Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, covers not just violence to women and girls in conflict areas but also more generally, so I hope she will forgive me if I digress slightly from areas of conflict to matters in the home and abroad and to the continued and horrific practice of female genital mutilation.
I was first made aware of this shortly after joining your Lordships’ House in 2013, when the novelist Ruth Rendell—the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh—campaigned over the practice in this country. I was utterly shocked to discover that, in the UK, girls were being subjected to this torture, often with a rusty razor blade, leading to endless health issues for the rest of the victim’s life, including infertility, infection, fistulas, pain and sexual problems.
Now, there has been some improvement in this country, according to my friend Nimco Ali, the campaigner who has undergone FGM, and the real challenge probably lies in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular Somalia and its neighbours. Here, education is probably our best and most important strategy.
However, despite some welcome news on the home front, I want to warn against complacency. Because we do not read about it, it does not mean that it is not happening here. That is a reason for ongoing concern. I will give noble Lords some NHS figures, but first, a plea from the Five Foundation to the Government. In 2014, the Home Office funded a study to find the prevalence of FGM here, based on the 2011 census and other research. It showed that 137,000 women and girls were affected and that no local authority in England and Wales was free from FGM. With new census information now available from 2022, will the Home Office agree to a request by the Five Foundation, which Nimco Ali heads, to work with it to update these prevalence estimates? This project would help to inform policy on ending FGM in the UK, including to potentially help signpost where survivors could get help medical or psychological support. It would help identify the areas where FGM is prevalent.
The latest statistics from the NHS are shocking, even though they are down:
“There were 2,090 individual women and girls who had an attendance where FGM was identified in the period January 2024 to March 2024. These accounted for 3,900 attendances reported at NHS trusts and GP practices where FGM was identified. There were 945 newly recorded women and girls in the period January 2024 to March 2024. Newly recorded means that this is the first time they have appeared in this dataset … The number of newly recorded women and girls has reduced over time. This is to be expected as the longer the collection continues, the greater the chance of a woman or girl having been recorded in it previously. Since April 2015, 37,525 individual women and girls had an attendance where FGM was identified”.
So, by any measure, we simply must not sit back. We must continue to pursue anyone committing and facilitating FGM, and continue to make the practice unacceptable in communities where it happens, through discussion and education. I hope that the new Government will endorse these sentiments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, who spoke so clearly on that issue. I declare that I am a volunteer chair of the UK board of the peacebuilding charity Search For Common Ground, which works in this area, and for two years I have supported a project that supports women peace activists and those seeking to be political actors in Lebanon. The project particularly supports the very brave women in the Bekaa Valley who have sought to throw off the yoke of Hezbollah authority and whose facilities in the area have now been bombed by the IDF, contrary to international humanitarian law.
This is a bittersweet debate, because I was introduced in this House on the same day as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. She should not need to be campaigning so powerfully on this issue over 11 years, but we are very glad that she is still doing so and maintaining the pressure on the Government and on Parliament.
It is also bittersweet because I have a degree of sympathy with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about what we are legislating. I hold that view because of my experience of the legislation I played a small part in taking through in 2015, which has now been disregarded by two Governments. Not only has that 2015 legislation on official development assistance been disregarded by two successive Governments; the 2002 Act on official development assistance has now been reneged on. So I hope both that this Bill will go through and that it will be honoured.
Therefore, while not being defeatist, and although the advice provided to the Minister is doubtless as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, predicted, I believe that it is parliamentarians and Ministers who decide and are ultimately responsible, not the officials, who advise. I believe that this Bill should not only pass this House but have government time. The Minister can also commit not necessarily to supporting the Bill but to ensuring that there will be time for it to be debated in the House of Commons. That is the very least the Government can do.
This is also an opportunity for the Minister to clarify the Government’s structure, intent and funding for peace and security. As a result of the Budget and the appointment of Ministers, there has been a degree of uncertainty as to where peace and security, and peacebuilding funding against conflict, lie. Are they still with the Cabinet Office? Are they now fully within the FCDO? Where do they lie and what funding is being given to them? I hope the Minister will be able to provide that answer.
The Minister can also state, I believe categorically, that the Government will no longer carry out the previous Administration’s budget reductions for gender-based programmes without gender-focused impact assessments. I have not been able to determine whether the latest round of ODA cuts announced in the Budget were informed by an impact assessment with a gender lens and focus. I hope the Minister can confirm that that has indeed been carried out and will be published.
I also understand that this is the fifth iteration of the national action plan and that it is joint owned by the MoD. I could see no reference to women, peace and security in the terms of reference for the strategic defence review. If the Government are implementing what they clearly state is the commitment to the national action plan, then surely, if it is joint owned by the MoD, the fundamental review of the MoD now being carried out should include women, peace and security. It is not too late for that to be included. I trust the officials are listening to that too.
This is important now because seeking peace that can be sustained into a way of governance is even harder in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century. There is an increasing insidious level of male economic interest in conflict, either by belligerents themselves, by those who finance conflict, or by those in enabling and neighbouring countries who increasingly see state capture of technology and military industrial complexes in conflict economics. This is harder to extract, even after there has been a cessation of hostilities or a so-called peace settlement, which often simply freezes a conflict rather than resolving it. Indeed, such settlements do not remove the controlling interests of many of the belligerents, who swap quasi-military uniforms for sharp suits but still have their own interests at stake and still exclude women from future governance. There has been collective failure to ensure inclusive security sector reforms and transitional justice. Depressingly, we can add to the terrible statistic that 70% of peace settlements have excluded women, as given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson; SSR reform processes and transitional justice processes have also systematically disregarded Security Council Resolution 1325.
Another reason why the Bill is necessary is that since the noble Baroness introduced the first version of it, we have seen the terrible situations in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and, more recently, in Sudan. I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions about those areas. I hope the national action plan, notwithstanding my noble friend Lady Miller’s comments regarding Colombia, will now actively include the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan as priority countries. If it does not, there will be a substantial problem with an action plan that will run to 2027 and that cannot adapt to what is currently the world’s worst manmade humanitarian crisis, which disproportionately affects women and girls. I hope the Minister can respond to that.
The UK is the penholder for Sudan and it will have the presidency of the Security Council, but we have seen the failed attempts of the Jeddah process, the Manama process, the Geneva process and the UN ALPS process. We have also seen IGAD and the African Union actively exclude women from these processes. These processes are happening now and the UK is the penholder, so what leverage is the UK using to ensure that any processes do not actively exclude women?
The UK is supporting the civilians. The Minister has met and supports the Tagadum civilian network. I declare an interest, in that I too have been supporting the Tagadum process. It is welcome that the Government are doing that, but women are currently being excluded from the structured processes of seeking a ceasefire and an end to the fighting. That means there is now a danger, as the noble Baroness and others have said, that unless there is an inclusive process for Sudan—as we will need to see for Gaza—the male belligerents will simply hold the next process hostage and inclusive governance will not be possible. That is why political dialogue has to be a process alongside those looking for ceasefires.
Finally, I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the noble Baroness said about quoting back to the Minister what he said in opposition. Perhaps we on these Benches can be observers of this slightly topsy-turvy process whereby only those in the Official Opposition, be they Labour or Conservative, support such a Bill. Let us turn that around and allow the Minister perhaps to say today that time will be given for this Bill, and that commitments will be given in principle to support it moving to the next stage. We can then engage in cross-party, all-party dialogue to ensure that there is at least a chance that time will be found in the House of Commons to allow the Bill to get on to the statute book, because, as we all know, it is desperately needed now.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Women, Peace and Security Bill, and join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. As Conservatives, we recognise that national security and prosperity hinge not only on a robust defence but on the empowerment and protection of those who bear the heaviest burdens in conflict: women and girls.
The aim of the Bill, as so ably explained by my noble friend, is to secure and promote the essential role of women in peace processes, humanitarian efforts and post-conflict reconstruction. That is a noble aim and, as we have heard, noble Lords on all sides of the House support its objectives.
While it is an open question whether primary legislation in UK law is the best way to pursue these goals—a question that we look forward to addressing and supporting during the passage of the Bill—we are wholeheartedly behind my noble friend’s Bill and the principles at its core. Indeed, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure the role of women in these processes.
Today, the global stage presents us with challenges, as mentioned by many noble Lords, in various conflicts around the world that seem to grow in complexity. We witness persistent conflict, mass displacement and threats to fundamental freedoms. Many of the regions where these conflicts occur are precisely those where women are most oppressed and excluded. For this reason, I understand my noble friend’s reasons for bringing this Bill forward to the House. In an increasingly dangerous world, it is important to empower and protect those who suffer most in conflict scenarios. I support my noble friend’s Bill and look forward to the response of the Minister, particularly to my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Ahmad.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly those who keep reminding me of what I said in opposition. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing this Bill before Parliament, particularly for her steadfast commitment to this agenda of women, peace and security and for her dedication in championing the protection and, more importantly, the empowerment of women.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for spearheading vital work during their tenures as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. I shall focus on the work by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, because during his leadership we hosted the 2022 conference on PSVI and, as he said, we launched the Murad code. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their focus on this important area of work.
I want to stress—I think all noble Lords know this —that it is also a key priority for me. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I am delighted to announce today that the Prime Minister has appointed me as his special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The global scale of conflict-related sexual violence cases is deeply concerning, with a 50% increase in the number of UN-verified cases recorded globally in 2023. In this role, I will work to galvanise international action to prevent and respond to CRSV. Sexual violence in all forms must stop, all perpetrators must be held accountable and survivors must be supported.
Let me begin by saying—noble Lords have heard me say this before—that the Government fully support the ethos of this Bill. Unlike the position that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, found himself in, I can say with confidence that the Government are absolutely committed to this agenda. This September, at the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment to work together for peace, progress and equality. Empowering women and girls is at the heart of this work and a key government priority.
The proportion of women killed in conflict has doubled compared to 2022. Levels of conflict are at the highest since World War II, disproportionately impacting women and girls. In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, made a point about the level of involvement of women in peace agreements, and that was also highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others. It is shocking that no peace agreement reached in 2023 included a woman representative or women’s group as a signatory. This is unacceptable.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I was at the Magnitsky awards last night and was incredibly moved by the tributes and the people we were saluting. She is absolutely right—guarantees for human rights are more reliant on civil society, as I have repeatedly said. This Government will remain committed to supporting civil society and women’s groups in particular.
There are good examples of supporting women’s involvement and meaningful participation in peace processes. The UK-funded Women Mediators across the Commonwealth is supporting the direct involvement of women in mediation in Niger and Sierra Leone. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have been committed to the establishment of the anti-war and pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition, with which over 200 women are involved.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that, in Colombia, we continue to support the Government to increase women’s participation in the ongoing ceasefire peace agreement. To reassure the noble Baroness, I say that I will be in Colombia next week and will raise those concerns, working with my colleagues in government on how we can focus on that in particular. I have a long record of supporting civil society in Colombia, and that is the key to protecting human rights for the future.
The Government are unwavering in their commitment to women, peace and security. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it is jointly led by the FCDO and the Ministry of Defence, but we also have contributions across the United Kingdom, with Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive involvement, which has been clear from the start. No one knows what the outcome of the defence review will be, but my noble friend Lord Robertson has been involved with a range of participants in his review, including groups of women.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the Integrated Security Fund is funding work in the Northern Ireland Office to improve awareness of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the UK national action plan, building links between Northern Ireland civil society and the national action plan. She is absolutely right to focus on those very human examples that she gave us.
On ministerial engagement on WPS, we need to show the evidence of how committed we are. In September, I attended the UN General Assembly high-level week, where, alongside my fellow FCDO Ministers, I raised the current global crises, from Gaza to Sudan and Ukraine, and their disproportionate impact on women and girls. I certainly agree with my noble friend that Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and we continue to monitor that. We sanctioned 10 Russian officials and one entity linked to child deportations in 2023, including the Russian children’s rights commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova, and we will continue to investigate all those examples. We are very involved in—and, as my honourable friend Minister Stephen Doughty has said, absolutely committed to—supporting the people of Ukraine in their fight against Putin’s invasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was absolutely right to raise FGM. Through our programme, Support to the Africa-Led Movement to End FGM, we have been offering survivor leadership training, really focusing on getting into the communities. We will continue to do that and ensure that we can also break down the stigma associated with FGM, so that we can address the problem openly and transparently.
At the UN General Assembly—again, I am picking up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I hosted an event on the situation on Sudan. We engaged with P5 members, but we also heard from women who were Sudanese survivors. They came to talk to the United Nations General Assembly, courageously providing crucial evidence on how we can give assistance to survivors.
On Tuesday this week, while we have the UK presidency of the Security Council, I hosted a stakeholders’ meeting in New York to discuss the appalling situation in the DRC. We opened our discussion by hearing first from key stakeholders, such as Physicians for Human Rights, on the rising number of cases of conflict-related sexual violence in eastern DRC. We focused on their recommendations for action.
In Ethiopia last month, I saw how UK aid is supporting survivors in Tigray. I met inspiring women leaders working to make a vital change in their communities. Following her visit to South Sudan, the Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities announced an additional £15 million to help Sudan, South Sudan and Chad support vulnerable people.
Minister Falconer has met Afghan women leaders to hear their perspectives and discuss the inclusion of women in Afghanistan’s future. I certainly hear what my noble friend Lady Kennedy described: what is, in effect, an apartheid policy being adopted against women. The FCDO is actively considering legal and policy questions in relation to the proposal on gender apartheid. We have also given £161 million in aid—noble Lords asked about this—50% of which is focused on women and girls. Last week, my noble friend Lord Coaker, the Minister of State, was also in Bosnia and Herzegovina working on WPS actions there, so we are absolutely focused.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked why Sudan and Gaza are not WPS focus countries. The UK utilises a focus country model to prioritise efforts and ensure that we can triage support to where it is most needed. This model is agile to ensure that where crises emerge, we can respond quickly, as has been the case for Israel, the OPTs and Sudan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised abortion. We remain absolutely committed to adhering to abortion services, which should be offered in the cases that she described. Even where our policy trumps local laws, there is no doubt about that.
I turn now to the vital issue of the Government’s stance on the Bill. As I said at the beginning, I would like to support its ethos as we approach the 25th anniversary of the WPS agenda. The UK Government were at the spearhead at the time, as noble Lords have pointed out, and I am grateful for the focus on redoubling our efforts on this agenda. Things have moved back, and we need to refocus on it, and I am grateful that this Bill has been brought before the House for consideration. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, repeatedly told this House when I was in opposition, the Government have some reservations. It would be absolutely right for me to focus on those, but these reservations have to be seen in the light of our absolute commitment to this agenda and its implementation, so I hope that some of the things I say will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that we will deliver what she so keenly wants.
We are delivering key principles of the Bill. We have been implementing the WPS agenda through national action plans, as noble Lords pointed out, since 2006, demonstrating strong cross-party support for the agenda. I reassure noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the Government support the approach and ambition of the fifth National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and intend to build on this ambition during the 25th anniversary year, advancing implementation and focusing on new priorities. The Bill as proposed does not match our ambition—for example, taking a narrow view of participation—and includes provisions which we could not support, including potential overlap with existing legislation and conventions, and those that would constrain foreign policy.
In specific response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we acknowledge the importance of continuous training of peacekeeping forces on gender issues. The British peace support team in Africa has taken steps to support peacekeeping missions by providing training and addresses critical issues such as sexual and gender-based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse. I have met people on my visits to Africa in recent months and have seen this training in action.
I also agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Anelay, that accountability is crucial. I recall the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to strengthen engagement with this House. I reassure the noble Baronesses that I share that commitment. Following today’s Second Reading, I want to meet the noble Baroness and the APPG to discuss all the options for strengthening that sort of accountability and participation. I absolutely remain committed.
Before I hand over to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I thank all noble Lords. This has been an excellent debate. I know that we often talk about the responsibilities of opposition and government, but I know that all of us in this House are absolutely focused on delivering on this agenda. I am proud of the UK’s work on a cross-party basis, and I look forward to co-operating with the noble Baroness, the APPG and others in ensuring its proper delivery.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their excellent contributions. I am so grateful for the strong support from around the House. So many powerful points were raised: children stolen from Ukraine, so powerfully raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell; rape as a weapon of war, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Kennedy; the necessity of women to be involved in peace negotiations, raised by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Loomba; training for peacekeeping missions, raised by my noble friend Lady Anelay; FGM, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; and funding for women, peace and security, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Countries were raised too. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, reminded us of the outstanding contribution of women in bringing peace to Northern Ireland—what an example they were. There is the desperate situation in Afghanistan, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Foster—let us please have a debate on that issue. The DRC was raised by several noble Lords, Colombia was highlighted by my noble friend Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, highlighted Lebanon and the women in the Bekaa valley. Gaza, Sudan and Tigray were also mentioned. There have been too many points to mention them all.
I am particularly grateful for the strong support for the Bill from my two noble friends who were previously Ministers on this agenda in the FCDO and for the Front-Bench support from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Courtown.
I thank the Minister for his response and I congratulate him; I think we are all thrilled that he will be the special representative on the PSVI. I know his strong commitment to this agenda over many years. I am particularly grateful to hear that the Government are supporting the ethos of the Bill and to hear of all their work, but I am disappointed that they cannot support the Bill.
I would like to take up the Minister’s offer to work with him and, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad suggested, perhaps we could talk about the reservations that the Government have and see whether there is any way we could address those to stamp this into the DNA of law. Although I recognise the Minister’s commitment to this agenda, we do not want it to rest just on the good will of Ministers going forward. We need to ensure that even those who are not as keen as him will get behind it. I do not want to take up any more of noble Lords’ time, so, in the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank noble Lords for taking part in the Second Reading of the Home School Education Registration and Support Bill. There have, to my knowledge, been two previous Private Members’ Bills on home education —one Labour and one Conservative. Both, sadly, ran out of parliamentary time. During and since Covid, the number of home-educated pupils has increased considerably.
I thank the numerous people who have emailed or written to me on this subject, some expressing their concerns about the Bill and some supporting it. I am particularly grateful to the LGA for its extensive briefing and, of course, to our own Library. I have had a regular email correspondence with Rabbi Gratt, who has told me in no uncertain terms that the Bill will have serious effects on religious freedoms and teachings. I have assured him that this is completely unfounded and that the Bill will do no such thing.
We believe that parents and children must have an ironclad right to choose home education when they feel that this is the right decision, whether that is because the school system has failed them or simply because they are dissatisfied with formal education. This might be because of special educational needs or for religious reasons. That should be their right, but with rights come responsibilities. We have grave concerns that thousands of children’s whereabouts are simply unknown because they have never attended school, or because parents said they were going to be home-educated and then simply withdrew them from school. By ensuring that local authorities must keep a register of home-educated children and that parents and guardians register for home education, we would know which children are home-educated and where they are, and safeguarding would be assured.
We estimate—and that is the crucial word—that between 125,000 and 180,000 children are being home-educated, but we do not know the exact figure and, in many cases, we do not know where those children are. It must surely be a concern that any parent can simply say that they are teaching their children at home and that is an end to the matter. We have no knowledge of whether education is taking place or whether the children are safeguarded.
Of course, thousands of children are home-educated by their parents very successfully, and those children thrive and develop. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, only in the last few days has expressed concern over the rise in the number of families educating their children at home, citing unmet needs in schools, particularly among children with special educational needs.
I emphasise again that this Bill is in no way an encroachment on home educators and their autonomy. The Bill will fix the non-existent oversight of this area of education and ensure that authorities have accurate records of how many children are educated at home, where they are and that educational requirement are being met. If required by the parents, local authorities can offer support and advice where needed, always with the best interests of families and children in mind. It is worth noting that, currently, many local authorities have developed and resourced great support material for home educators, and built up trust and confidence with those home educators they know about, and work with them incredibly well.
The Bill seeks to establish a thoughtful and balanced regulatory framework that ensures effective oversight in the regulated institutions and protection of the rights and freedoms of home educators. It encourages a greater level of co-operation and fosters an effective working partnership between local authorities and home educators. With greater transparency provided through a clear structure and a framework, we can expect to see a rise in public trust in this country’s education institutions. I have ensured that the Bill is thoughtful and measured, so as to ensure that respect for home educators is maintained.
Ultimately, the Bill is a step forward in ensuring the quality of education for the children of this country. It should be viewed as an opportunity to develop the education system for the better, with a clear message of benefiting the children and young people of the nation. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to future discussions in Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill does not deal with the vexed issue of unregulated schools, which is, I hope, a matter we will be able to deal with in the long-awaited education and children’s welfare Bill. If that Bill deals with home education then this Private Member’s Bill of mine will not be needed—hallelujah.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it has to be said that this is not new territory. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned previous Private Members’ Bills. In the Queen’s Speech of November 2009, the Labour Government announced the introduction of a Children, Schools and Families Bill, which was to have amended the Education Act 1996 so as to require home-educated children to be registered with the local authority. Unfortunately, the proposed changes were dropped the following year due to a lack of cross-party support in the wash-up.
Now, 15 years on, despite support for a register being signalled by all four Tory Ministers whom I faced at the Dispatch Box during my time as shadow Education Minister in your Lordships’ House—including the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, now on the Opposition Front Bench—we are no further forward. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on presenting this Bill and I am fully supportive of its aims. However, I believe its title should have been “children not in school registration” rather than “home school education registration”, as the concerns go wider than the home. I say that bearing in mind the noble Lord’s comments at the end of his introduction.
In many instances, the decision on home education is right for the children involved; supported by parents who have an understanding of the educational needs of their children and the ability to ensure that these needs are delivered, it is beneficial to them. In those cases, home schooling is appropriate and can be nurturing, and such out-of-school settings do not cause any concern.
The problem which has to be acknowledged, however, is that many children—either never presented to school or subsequently withdrawn—do not enjoy such a benign experience. The issue that I find of most concern is that there are no accurate figures for how many children in England are not in mainstream education. For the status and safety of children to be allocated to a category marked “Don’t know” by government is totally unacceptable. Child protection is too important an issue for that to be the case, but under existing legislation it is.
Some parents are ideologically opposed to formal education and indeed to almost all forms of state intervention in their lives—apart from child benefit, of course. I endorse their right to hold such views, but it is unrealistic—indeed, irresponsible—to expect that the wishes of a minority of parents should be permitted to override issues of child safety and protection.
The significant increase in children not in mainstream education, which has taken place in recent years, has not arisen from any significant growth in the number of those who believe in the virtues of home education for its own sake. Rather, the factors leading to a significant proportion of the children now claimed to be receiving education at home are, I fear, more negative. They include difficulty in obtaining within the school system what parents see as adequate provision, especially for children with special needs; disagreement with schools about academic or behavioural issues; and a perceived lack of suitable alternative provision for those children who would benefit from it.
It is now essential to move towards a position where, when necessary, local authorities will be in a better position to take effective action to ensure that a child is receiving suitable education. The first step in this is to ensure that local authorities are aware of the existence of all children who are not in mainstream schooling.
I would like to see the Bill amended to include the introduction of a duty on settings attended by children on the register to respond to inquiries from local authorities as to whether a specific child attends that setting.
The Bill does not refer to unregistered schools, but it is impossible to separate them from the issue of home education. As long ago as 2018, Ofsted inspectors discovered 286 unregistered schools in England, with around 6,000 young people attending them. I do not have up-to-date figures but, in many cases, it was claimed that the pupils were being home educated when in fact they were attending such schools every day. Thus, the Education Act 1996 is being exploited to enable children to attend those establishments. For that reason, I hope the Bill will be amended in Committee to more accurately reflect the extent of the problems associated with children being invisible and therefore potentially at risk of harm.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for giving us the opportunity of looking at this Bill. I am a long-term supporter of home education, though I confess I have never had the courage to try it myself. I declare an interest as the proprietor of the Good Schools Guide, which covers home education and the best online schools. In that context, I may well stray over the four-minute ideal, but I think this is an important area to deal with since, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says, we are likely to see this in the upcoming government Bill.
Home education is a very varied world; there is a great deal of good practice, some problematic areas and very little data. Therefore, a review, in this Bill or otherwise, is really timely. We should approach home education with both humility and respect. With respect because the parents who are taking this on are taking on a huge responsibility and a great deal of work, relying almost entirely on their own resources, and many parents I know have done so with huge success for their children. With humility because, despite the state’s resources and all the improvements that have been in the last 30 years in state education, we still have failing schools. Special educational needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, is still a mess and alternative provision is not what it should be.
We are far from perfect and we should understand imperfection in others. However, we should approach home education with confidence in our culture. Children have a right to education and a right to be part of society. Just because someone is a follower of the Taliban, it does not give them—in this country—the right to treat their children in the way the Taliban do. Based on that confidence, we should have confidence in accommodating difference—as indeed we do. I have been around some truly astonishing—in terms of what they are teaching the children—Catholic and Church of England schools. But, fine—we can live with that, as long as they are not closing their children off from a full education and from the world.
In dealing with religious authorities, we should negotiate with confidence and strength. We should approach the whole thing with support. Home education is a huge challenge, even if it is something you have chosen. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, it very often is not—it is because of some failing in the state system, and parents being determined that their child should not suffer from it.
I very much feel that the best way of interacting with home education is by making home-educated children visible, and by offering them support. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says, there are many excellent examples of local authorities which will provide support in mathematics, which is always difficult for someone who does not have that skill to teach. Sport offers other ways of getting together and making the children visible, making it easier to see which children are thriving.
Yes, some local education authorities do this really well, and the result is that the money local authorities spend is mostly spent doing good, and the families that are not thriving in home education become immediately visible, because they are not participating. The money and the focus of helping children can just be on the children who really need it.
Other authorities, however, in my experience, are positively demonic and it really is up to the DfE to hold the ring. We must have clear requirements and a clear understanding of what both parents and local authorities are meant to do. It must be clearly expressed, so that there are no arguments over the language. We must have had the opportunity of extensive discussions about it. We must make it easy for people from the local authority to act with confidence, to know that their judgments—that, yes, this family is doing well—will not be questioned. We must have a confident appeals process, we must gather data—as we are not doing at the moment—and, when something is going wrong, we must deal with the rogues crisply.
And so to the Bill. A register must be of all children in the country, not just home-educated children. There are some dark corners of state education that are really not well enough documented. We must document children in private schools better than we do at the moment; they are not included in the national schools census.
I have some substantial problems with the wording of Bill. If the Government wish to proceed with the Bill, or with their own, a meeting would save a great deal of parliamentary time.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, which is long-needed. It is possible to say that there are some fantastic examples of home education. My education started when I was two years old and continued at least until I was six, by which time I had been taught almost everything I needed to learn in primary school. But I had to waste one year in primary school, because that was required.
Even the best education a family can give does not prepare the student for civic life. It does not prepare the student to mix socially or behave like a responsible adult. They may know the Talmud, the Koran or the Bible very nicely, but that is not enough. You have to know something else as well in life.
I think that, while we are playing around with this thing called home education, it is really about religious education. Let us call a spade a spade. Very often, children are educated at home because the religious beliefs not of the children but of their parents insist that they be taught only what is essential from a religious point of view, and not to be literate, mathematically informed or anything else.
On the one hand, you might say that that is religious freedom—of course, parents have the religious freedom to do anything they like for their children—but, on the other, their children have to grow up to be citizens of our society and know what it is like to be in this society. For that reason, we have to monitor, from the beginning, whether these children will be harmed for ever and prevented from being good citizens, or whether they will be all right. Again, I do not doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, some children are getting a fantastic family education, but the majority of such children are not getting the education they deserve—not only academic knowledge but civic training in being part of society.
I very much welcome the Bill and hope that, in registering who is home-educated, we will have strict standards and not take any excuse, such as someone saying, “The kid is backward”. It is the girls who suffer much more than the boys; boys somehow get better in terms of social background, but the girls really do suffer. I hope that the Bill speeds through, and that we absolutely get rid of the education that is holding our children back, and who, having been held back, will be handicapped for their entire adult lives.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have not done home education myself. My only experience was standing over my own sons for long hours encouraging a more focused approach to their GCSE revision. This only affirmed my admiration for those who actively choose to home educate their children.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for placing the welfare of children at the heart of the Bill. There is some resistance to the idea of compulsory registration in the home-education community, as set out in new Section 436B. There is also disquiet about the content of the proposed register, as set out in new Sections 436C and 436D, which is seen as an example of state overreach. While I support the overall thrust of the noble Lord’s Bill, I hope that further work will be done to clarify the limits of the information recorded and the provision of safeguards to protect parental rights. The proposals for registration and support in the Bill should allow a better collaborative approach between home educators and education professionals.
The Church of England’s approach to home education has been threefold: first, to ensure that people who say that pupils are being home-educated actually are home-educating them; secondly, to ensure that children are safe; and, thirdly, to ensure that schools are not using it as an excuse to off-roll “difficult” children in order to protect their exam results and place in the league tables. There is concern that children are being kept away from school because of their anxieties and poor SEND provision. ITV News research last year showed that over half of children with special educational needs and disabilities—58%—have had to take time out of school because their needs could not be met. Of those children, 36% spent between a month and a year out of school, while 7% spent more than a year out. Is the significant increase in the numbers of children being home-educated, as indicated in the Library briefing on the Bill, indicative of a collapse of parental faith in the SEND system, rather than an active choice?
In a number of rural areas, schools are under threat of closure from local authorities. We have current examples of Church schools in North Yorkshire and the Isle of Wight. In areas where public transport is poor and unpredictable, and parents are disenchanted with public education due to the closure of a much-loved school where their child is settled and happy, is there a risk that they will choose to home-educate instead of sending their child to a distant and unfamiliar school? Are we confident in the support available to those parents to farm and work in the rural economy and to provide their children with a good education?
The key to the success of the Bill’s proposals in new Section 436G will lie in consistent local authority support and nationally agreed culturally sensitive guidelines for such support. It will be especially important that those liaising with families understand the unique needs of those on the autistic spectrum—for example, in their interactions with them. Currently, home educators report a range of experiences of local authorities, from the collaborative to the hostile—it is a bit of a postcode lottery. As more and more schools academise, there is a danger that local authority provision may wither on the vine and the aspirations of the Bill will be disappointed. The preservation of that support will be crucial to ensuring the best outcome for all children in elective home education.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for proposing this Bill. I support mandatory home education registration—as well as the registration of those not in education, as highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Lucas—but this must be accompanied by mandatory checks to provide assurances that children are safe and receiving a quality education.
I understand that there is a legal obligation on parents to ensure that their child receives efficient full-time education suitable to their age and ability, including in the right format for those with special educational needs. Local authorities have a legal duty to establish that every child in their area is receiving a suitable education. However, how effectively is this happening? Do the Government have any evidence of how many inquiries local authorities have made and followed up? While I respect parental wishes on how to educate their children, and many parents will be providing a stimulating and safe environment and acting in the best interests of their children, this is not always the case, leading to lifelong barriers and affecting life chances.
When children are not in education and are home-schooled without oversight, they become invisible and vulnerable to various risks, such as domestic abuse, sexual abuse, female genital mutilation, poor mental health, forced marriage and so on. I asked the previous Education Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about this. She provided a detailed written response back in February 2024. I will use some of the data in that letter to make some of my points.
The noble Baroness provided elective home education data which showed that the numbers in 2016 were 37,500. Since then, they have been increasing every year. By 2023, they had rocketed to 126,100 and may well be higher, as has been highlighted. That is a rise of 236%, if I have got my maths right. The proportion increases as children grow older; it is one-third in year groups 10 and 11—14 and 15 year-olds. Children from minority-ethnic backgrounds are overrepresented: for 26% the ethnicity was unknown, 51% were white British and 23% were from minority-ethnic backgrounds. This 23% is an overrepresentation since the minority-ethnic population is 18%. However, if you consider the unknown data, assuming that it follows a similar trend, the proportion of minority-ethnic children in elective home education is more likely to be 30%. I therefore welcome the recording of protected characteristics in the Bill. We cannot ignore these trends of rising numbers, older children and high numbers of minority-ethnic children. Are the Government concerned about these trends? They should be.
I also inquired into the reasons for home education in my letter. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, shared that for 35% of the children the reason was unknown or the parents did not give one. Will the Government tackle the drivers of elective home education? Perhaps parents have no choice because schools are not meeting the needs of children and even pressuring parents to take their children out of school. Will the Government support this Bill or incorporate its recommendations into their future children’s well-being Bill?
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has form on this. I congratulate him on his determination, ever since he picked up the baton from my retired noble friend Lord Soley to rescue many vulnerable children. Despite the promises of the previous Government, nothing ever materialised, yet the number of children missing from school has clearly significantly increased, even though we do not know the exact number. So, alarmingly, has the number of children recruited on to county lines to deal in drugs under the intimidation and violence of criminal gangs. Was it not a dereliction of duty for the previous Government to abandon these children for so long without recognised education?
I should first say that it is still of prime importance to make it easier for all children to attend proper registered schools and thrive there. That has not always been so, and of course, as has been said, there have always been parents who educated their children at home well—often very well. Such parents have nothing to fear from the Bill, nor will the parents of children in registered religious schools. I hope that, in the interests of the large number of children who have massively missed out by being out of school, all parents will understand the need for the register.
This Bill will provide the lifeline of a proper education for some groups of children in particular. I first mention children of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, who drop out or are expelled or encouraged out of insufficiently inclusive schools in larger proportions than any other ethnic group. Their parents may have chosen home education because the bullying their children faced is intolerable, but they may not be equipped or have the time to home-educate properly.
However, there are also the children who have been made to attend those unregistered illegal schools whose narrow curricula and harsh punishments do not enable them to thrive. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found cases of physical and sexual abuse in some of those schools. This also needs to be dealt with
I have a few small concerns with the noble Lord’s Bill. In new Section 436D(1)(a), the obligation on parents to inform the local authority of home education may be impracticable for marginalised parents. Perhaps it should be the schools which inform the local authority, at least in the case of expulsion or the choice of elective home education. Also, I cannot work out what the difference is between new Section 436C(2)(j) and (k). That is only a detail, though.
Finally, a small number of families travel for work and in observance of cultural tradition, but local authority transit sites allow them to stop for only three months at a time, which disrupts their children’s education. They do not want that, but it predisposes them as a family to choose home education when they might not have the capacity. If the Department for Education were to continue its very welcome support for Open Doors Education & Training’s distance learning scheme, partnered with the Traveller Movement, this gap in home education could be filled. Can my noble friend guarantee that?
I hope that our Government can give this Bill a fair wind or provide their own version of its promise.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I have great hopes that we are pushing against an open door in respect of my noble friend’s Bill, because promises regarding a mandatory register have been made for years, although they never materialised under previous Conservative Governments. I have great hopes for our forgotten children this time. How many of them are there? We just do not know. The DfE can only estimate perhaps as many as 185,000 children, and all the rules regarding safeguarding children have seemingly ceased to apply.
On our Benches there is no disagreement in acknowledging the right of a parent to home-school their child. Post-Covid, this has become a lot more popular. But we need to understand what lies behind the decision to home-educate. Sometimes it is because, as has been mentioned, local authorities have failed in their duty to provide suitable, safe education. For example, children with special educational needs have been mentioned. There are also children who have been bullied at school.
However, sometimes, a child is not receiving enough of the right quality of education to fit them for adult life. Sometimes the reasons are more sinister, and a child is being neglected and abused, so luridly exemplified by the systematic abuse and tragic, horrific death of Victoria Climbié.
Concern about family privacy should never be allowed to undermine the best interests of the child. Lack of a compulsory register gives the opportunity for unregistered schools to flourish, which can then avoid oversight from the DfE and hence avoid regulations which may conflict with their religious teachings.
Freedom to practise a religion does not give religious groups the right to deprive children of an adequate education in a safe setting. I am respectful of mainstream registered religious schools, but unregistered religious schools in particular fail to conform to school standards, particularly regarding safeguarding and quality of education. This leaves those children open to physical abuse and woefully underprepared for the outside world, dependent on the insular religious community they were born into. They do not know what the outside world has to offer, and they may never break free.
I urge the Minister to take advantage of my noble friend’s Bill to reclaim our lost children and give them the education they need and deserve in a safe environment, to the standard that will equip them to become successful and productive citizens of tomorrow.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the Home School Education Registration and Support Bill, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for introducing it. This Bill largely reflects Part 3 of the Schools Bill 2022, which aimed to set up a register of children not in school. I note however that there are some changes in scope, including proposed new Section 436G, which includes the offer of support in relation to safeguarding as well as education.
I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of Lord Soley, who long campaigned on this issue. I hope he is watching our debate today.
At that time, we acknowledged in this House that there are three main groups of children who are educated at home. First, there are those whose parents positively believe in home education and actively choose it for their children. Secondly, there are those children who have not thrived at school, perhaps because of bullying or unmet needs in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, and whose parents feel they have no choice but to educate them at home although initially they would not have chosen to do so. Finally, there are those children who are not in school, but neither are they receiving an education at home. As we have heard across the House, there are significant safeguarding concerns.
A register should permit parents who chose to educate their children at home to continue to do so. Combined with support, it should help parents who would prefer their children to be in school and who might be struggling to educate them at home. Finally, it should help identify that small group of children who could be at significant risk of harm and ensure that they are safeguarded.
When we were in government, we took the first steps towards increasing the level of information regarding the number of children who are educated at home. In February 2024, the Department for Education published experimental data to try to shed more light on this area, although I note that it uses data from 95% of local authorities and now, for the first time, we have data on each of the three school terms. The data published by the department showed that, in the 2022-23 academic year, there were 126,100 children receiving elective home education at any point in the year, which was an 8% increase on the previous year.
We recognise that this is an area of great sensitivity for parents, and we are clear that parents have the right to educate their children at home if they wish to. Thus huge care will be needed when the Government bring forward their children and well-being Bill—which I understand will include measures to create a register of home-schooled children—to ensure that the implementation of these measures is done with a focus on identifying those genuinely at risk or in need of support and does not intrude on the private life of families who are doing the best for their children.
It will be critical for services to be available to support those parents who need and request it. My noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted some of these sensitivities very eloquently. When I was sitting where the Minister now sits, I encouraged colleagues in the department when thinking about the guidance in this area to invite local authorities and home educators in to draft it together, because if they could agree in the room then perhaps it would work in real life. That is something she might want to consider.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will remember that, in the Schools Bill, these clauses were subject to a huge number of amendments. I tried to look it up last night, but, from memory, I think it was more than 130 amendments. So although we wish this Bill well, we expect to see it reemerge as part of the Government’s legislative calendar. It would be most helpful if the Minister could confirm when the education and well-being Bill will have its First Reading.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing a Second Reading for his Home School Education Registration and Support Bill. The aims of this Bill, as all noble Lords who have taken part in this very helpful debate today have identified, are admirable and important.
All children have the right to a suitable education, regardless of whether they are educated at school or at home. However, as noble Lords have emphasised, to ensure that this is the case, it is vital that local authorities have a complete picture of children in their area, including those not in school. That is why this Government have already committed to introduce proposals in the children’s well-being Bill that would require every local authority in England to keep children not in school registers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, knows that I am not in a position to say exactly when the children’s well-being Bill will be introduced, but we included it in this year’s King’s Speech, and in fact I spoke about it in my maiden speech from this Dispatch Box, so it will be within this parliamentary Session.
My noble friend Lord Watson identified that this is a development which has a very long history, going back, as he said, to the end of the previous Labour Government. I hope that, with the good will of noble Lords across this House, we are getting towards the end of that journey now and will be able to bring forward and get support for those proposals in the children’s well-being Bill when it arrives.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, was right to preface his comments by being clear that, in needing to know where every child is, that is not an attack on the legitimate right to home-educate when that is appropriate for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, there are some very good home-educating parents who, for a variety of reasons, feel that that is the appropriate decision for them.
However, it is also right that local authorities understand where those parents are, not least because, as noble Lords have identified, in some cases, local authorities are already providing good support to home educators. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked whether there is more we could do in that respect, and I can say that the children not in school proposals in the children’s well-being Bill will include a duty on local authorities to support home educators should they want it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, talked about the nature of the guidance and the conditions around what forms a suitable home education. The department’s elective home education guidance details eight components that local authorities should consider when determining whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and that includes literacy and numeracy standards, among others. But we recognise that every child learns differently, and relevant case law gives a broad discretion in how the fundamental right to an effective education is implemented. A local authority may request different types of evidence to help demonstrate that education provision is suitable. That could include samples of work, a meeting with the child, or a visit to the home.
Having been clear that there is a right to home-educate, it is important that we recognise the very big change that has happened over recent years. We cannot ignore official data that shows rising numbers of home-educated children, and that increasingly children are being moved into home education due to mental health concerns or special educational needs. In those cases, parents may be ill-prepared to begin home-educating, so children may be at risk of receiving an unsuitable education or no education at all—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, was right to say that we need to be clear about the characteristics of those children who have shifted out of schools. That will be an important way of identifying their needs and ensuring that they are safeguarded.
Local authorities have legal duties to identify children in their areas who are not in school and not receiving a suitable education, but this duty, as many noble Lords have said, is undermined by the fact that parents have no obligation to inform their local authority of their decision to home-educate. That is why this Government will use the children’s well-being Bill to require parents of eligible children to provide information for children not in school registers. This will help local authorities to identify all children not in school in their area, particularly those who are missing education, and, where this is the case, to take action to support those children.
The noble Lord’s Bill would require parents to provide information for children not in school registers, but it does not include a consequence if parents do not fulfil their legal duty. We think it is vital that local authorities can take action if parents attempt to evade registration—actions such as initiating the school attendance order process. Where a child is not receiving suitable education, the school attendance order process gives them a route to a suitable education through regular attendance at a named school.
Noble Lords rightly identified that there may be a variety of other reasons why the numbers of children either being home-educated or missing school are rising so considerably. I share noble Lords’ concerns that some parents are home-educating because they perceive that schools cannot meet their children’s special educational needs or disabilities. Making improvements for special educational needs and disabilities is a vital part of the Government’s opportunity mission, breaking the unfair link between background and opportunity. This starts by giving every child with special educational needs or disabilities—along with all other children—the best start in life. To do this, we urgently need to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs. This is an area of real focus for the department, and we will come forward with more action and reform here.
Other noble Lords raised mental health, and I am concerned by the rise in parents reporting mental health as their reason for choosing to educate their children at home. As of the autumn census day in October 2023, local authorities have reported that mental health is now the second most commonly reported reason for moving to home education. That is why this Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, because that is critical to breaking down barriers to learning. The right support should be available to every young person who needs it, which is why we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. It is why we will put in place new Young Futures hubs that will include access to mental health support workers, and it is why we will recruit an additional 8,500 new mental health staff to treat children and adults.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford spelled out, we are aware of cases where parents have felt forced or coerced into home education by their children’s schools. This is a clear instance of home education not being chosen in the best interests of the child. Ofsted takes any use of unlawful exclusions and off-rolling very seriously and, where evidence is found by inspectors, it will have a significant impact on the school’s leadership and management judgment.
As several noble Lords identified, many children who are home-educated use out-of-school settings, such as tuition centres, to supplement their education or provide enriching or social experiences. Many of those settings do a great job of providing safe and enriching activities to children. However, we recognise that there are concerns about the safety profile of some of those settings, which is why we are taking forward a package of measures aimed at improving safeguarding in the out-of-school settings sector. This includes updated safeguarding guidance for parents, providers and local authorities, as well as an accompanying e-learning package and a call for evidence on future policy proposals for raising standards.
My noble friend Lord Watson, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised the issue of illegal schools. We do not choose to call these schools “unregistered” because, by being unregistered, they are illegal. The Government’s aim is that all children of compulsory school age receive a safe and suitably broad education. If parents secure part of their child’s education through attendance at an unregistered independent school, they are putting their child into an illegal school—one that is not known to the department and not subject to inspection against the independent school standard. There is therefore no system to assure their performance, and they can and often do pose a safeguarding risk. It is illegal to operate an unregistered school, and those conducting an unregistered independent school are committing a criminal offence. The premises from which they run may already be subject to no-notice inspections by Ofsted and, if sufficient evidence is found, those running them may be prosecuted. We will keep the powers available to Ofsted during these inspections under review, but I make clear that we are not willing to see children being put in danger in illegal schools.
There has been some debate today about how children not in school registers may impact particular communities. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the correspondence from Rabbi Gratt, and I have received it as well. I want to reassure the House that this Government’s proposals would not give local authorities additional powers to mandate the content of home education. Parents could continue to instil in their children religious and cultural values, provided that the education being received is suitable.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker highlighted that home education is often a necessary choice for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, for reasons that are less to do with making a positive decision. On her question about support for distance learning schemes, as she knows, my department convenes a stakeholder group of representatives from the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and education sector to inform thinking about which policies and reforms can make the greatest positive difference to children and young people from these communities. I will write to my noble friend to provide more detail on the work being taken forward to provide the sort of support that she has argued for.
In thinking about the implementation of these registers, I assure noble Lords that we will look to engage broadly and to engage with marginalised groups of parents to ensure that we are putting in place appropriate arrangements.
In conclusion, while we wholeheartedly support the intention behind the Bill, I do not believe that it is the most effective way of bringing compulsory children not in school registers into being. That is why I must express reservations on the contents of the Bill. This Government already intend to legislate for children not in school registers through the children’s well-being Bill. We are committed to ensuring that these measures are as robust as possible, to minimise the risk of children slipping under the radar. I look forward to discussing the Government’s Bill with noble Lords in due course, and I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this important debate today.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for taking part in this Second Reading. I have learned a number of important things. The issue that comes out for me, on top of the need to register, is the importance of knowing where our children are. I struggle with this, because when I was a head teacher the Blair Government brought in what was called the “unique pupil number”. The idea was that every pupil had a number and, when a child moved school, the head would notify the new school or educational setting and the number would go with that child. I never knew what happened to that. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. It is not just about registering home-educated children; it is about registering children right across the educational spectrum.
The second issue, which we have been quite nervous talking about—I quite like the Minister’s phrase “illegal schools”—is that of unregistered schools. I am absolutely horrified at what Ofsted has told me about unregistered schools that do not teach any basic subjects at all. From the age of eight, there is a curriculum or a time spent entirely on religious teaching. In one school inspectors found that somebody teaching children was on the sex offenders register, and in another there was somebody with a criminal record. Ministers will know this—but it is very difficult to close those schools down. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will correct me if I am wrong, but I thank that in the last 10 years we have managed to prosecute only one school, because as soon as pressure is put on them they quickly regroup and go somewhere else, or they say that they are going to home-educate. There is a real problem of illegal schools, to use the term, and we must grasp that nettle as well.
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, for the record, I declare my interest as a non-executive director of the London Stock Exchange.
My Bill requires regulators to recognise the inherent characteristics of listed investment companies, and has been inspired by two things. First, the problem currently happening is that legislation and industry standards have forced misleading disclosures to be presented to investors in closed-end listed investment companies. The format imposed tells investors that they will themselves incur the cost of the fund management fees of listed investment companies when, in truth, those fees are paid by the company and are already reflected in the market share price. This suggestion of additional costs has frightened investors away, leading to the loss of tens of billions of pounds of potential investments with resulting economic damage to the country.
Secondly, in conversation with Treasury officials about the statutory instrument to replace PRIIPs some time ago, I mentioned flagging the inherent characteristics of closed-end listed investment companies. They said that they did not know how to define them, so I set myself that task. In honing the formulation, I am grateful for the assistance of market participants involved in listed investment companies: the London Stock Exchange; the Association of Investment Companies; and Nigel Farr and his legal team at HSF, who have given their time generously and voluntarily. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has joined me on this issue since the summer of 2023 and whose Private Member’s Bill on similar issues was passed by this House in the previous Session but lost due to the election.
I thank the staff of the Public Bill Office for their time this summer in assisting with the structure and organisation of the Bill into proper parliamentary form. They really are quite remarkable.
My dialogue with the Government and HMT was interrupted by the election, departmental purdah, the change of Government and the Budget preparations. I sent a draft to officials and raised it in our debate on the King’s Speech. I was promised a meeting but, due to the circumstances, it did not happen—although the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has stated more than once that I made a compelling case on the wider topic.
In September, the Government tabled draft statutory instruments for exemption from PRIIPs and for consumer composite investments to replace PRIIPs. The FCA issued a forbearance statement. However, the remedial changes expected by those actions have been resisted by the open-ended fund sector and some investment platforms insisting that there must be the same format of disclosure for closed-end listed investment companies as for open-end funds, despite their different structure.
Comparison is sought because portfolios held in the different structures sometimes consist of similar selections of listed equities, and they want to compare the fund management charges. However, other portfolios of listed investment companies bear more resemblance to listed conglomerates or listed companies holding property, and still others are more like the portfolios of venture capital companies. In fact nowadays the majority of the sector by number are the alternate portfolios investing in infrastructure, clean energy, social buildings and growth companies.
The economic effect of blocked investment in the alternate portfolios is substantial and the investment is truly lost, whereas equities can still be traded by other means. Nevertheless, that does not negate the fact that investors holding equities via listed investment companies have not enjoyed the shared performance that they would have done without the current market disruption, causing discounts at record levels.
The wisdom of the way in which comparisons are to be done is passing into the hands of the FCA and its consultation procedures. However, the clear fact now is that investors buy and hold shares of listed investment companies. Shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange as for any other listed company, subject to all the regulation, reporting and transparency requirements of listing. That is the undeniable starting point.
When investors want to cash their investment, they sell their shares on the market. There is no buying or selling of the underlying investments that the company holds, be that other equities or wind farms. That is the brilliance of the structure: liquid, tradable shares for the investor while enabling the long-term underlying investment necessary for illiquid things such as infrastructure and growth companies. The closed-endedness and listed structure enables that, and it is defined under listing rules, yet presently the very characteristics that bring this about are ignored. My Bill would correct that.
The meat of the Bill is Clause 2, requiring regulators’ rules, guidance, policy and interpretation to take account of this already regulated closed-end listed structure, most notably that, first, the shares are publicly traded capital market instruments. That may seem obvious but it has consequences, one of which is that it does not qualify for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme because it is different from a fund.
Secondly, the value of the investment is the price at which the company’s shares are traded on the relevant market. Again, that is different from a fund, and as true and obvious as for any other listed share, yet investors are being told something else.
Thirdly, shareholders have no individual right to a proportional share of the net asset value of the underlying assets, nor the right to have their shares repurchased or redeemed at a time of their choosing. This is another big difference from owning units in an open-ended fund. Indeed, this characteristic means that they were never properly included in the PRIIPs legislation, as evidenced by the new SI for consumer composite investments, which has changed the definition to additionally reference shares. I am not sure whether it is intentional, but they seem to have covered all listed shares.
Fourthly, management expenses and all recurring and non-recurring operating expenses are deductions from the net asset value of the company, and are not charges paid directly by the shareholder. Again, that is true and obvious if you think of holding shares in AstraZeneca, BP or Tesco, yet shareholders of listed investment trusts have been told that these costs will be taken again from the value of their investment—that is, off their shares—because of this wrong comparison with funds. Given that even regulators have previously fallen into mistaken statements, not heeding the inherent characteristics that I have explained, and that the eventual corrective actions by the Government and the FCA are still being resisted by the main competing industry, elaborating these facts is by no means redundant.
Clause 3 contains amendments to the legislation which is the root of the misleading information. This clause is largely redundant because of similar changes made by the Government in the PRIIPs SI. However, the points in Clause 3 are slightly different, are not contradictory and add more clarity to what the Government have done. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late and the sun is setting. The umpire wishes to remove the bails and draw the stumps and then we can all go home, so I will be very brief indeed. I do not want the House to think that such brevity is in any way lessening my support for the powerful case that the noble Baroness just made, and indeed the case made last year by my noble friend Lady Altmann.
The United Kingdom has a very proud record of pioneering innovations in the financial services industry. The investment trust movement, which has been around for over 100 years, is one such. However, only Britain could find itself in a situation where regulations being introduced as part of its membership of a political economic bloc—the PRIIPs regulations—were going to hamstring one of the most important sectors of its financial markets. Even more importantly, having decided to leave that bloc, and having done so on 31 January 2020, nearly five years later we have still not managed to find a way to answer the questions that the noble Baroness has just pointed out in her very powerful speech.
I do not put this down to a lack of political will: I am sure that the Minister would like to sort it out and that her predecessor, my noble friend Lady Penn, equally would have wished to. I put it down to a sort of extraordinary level of institutional inertia, linked to a huge risk aversion, combined at the same time with a very slow process of policy formation—what one might describe as analogue thinking in a digital age.
I am sure that we will hear from the Minister about the forbearance regulation that the FCA brought in. The House needs to understand that that does not go anywhere towards solving the major problem, which is the launch of new trusts. Nobody will take the time and trouble, or go through the expense, of launching a new investment trust if the forbearance regulations might be brought to an end at any time. It is just not getting to the heart of the problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has pointed out.
What is the answer? What can I offer to the Minister as a way forward? Well, she should get hold of today’s copy of the Financial Times, in which the main headline reads as follows:
“Reeves demands City watchdogs allow greater risk in push to promote growth”.
I suggest to my friend the Minister that, when this debate comes to an end, she goes back to her office, picks up the phone, talks to the Chancellor’s office and says to the Chancellor, “Have I got news for you—I have something you can do straight away that will promote growth in a very important part of the UK financial markets”.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on bringing the Bill forward. I also thank Ministers and Bill team officials who have worked so hard on this issue, and the many industry experts, and Herbert Smith Freehills’ legal team, who have made such contributions to this Bill and to my previous Private Member’s Bill, which received support from all sides of this House in the last Session and from which this Bill follows on.
The aim, as we all know, is to protect and revive a success story of the UK’s financial markets—a global leader. Although some may perceive this to be a higher-risk investment, for most consumers it is a lower-risk method of achieving exposure to sustainable growth or real estate investments than buying an individual company’s shares. This is a diversified spread, managed expertly, of a number of companies, so the overall risk should be lower, yet the current regulations and legislation treat these as if they are much higher-risk.
It is very good to see that we have laid the PRIIPs and CCI statutory instruments, and that the Treasury has issued its own statement. The Government seem to have encouraged or enabled the Financial Conduct Authority to issue emergency forbearance that states that the current practice in the markets, which this Bill aims to correct, is inappropriate and should not continue.
Currently, closed-end listed investment companies and their investors, or potential investors, are still not being treated fairly. Were the Bill to be adopted immediately, or as quickly as parliamentary time allows, that would solve the problem. The forbearance was supposed to do that. I will ask the Minister about this. The CCI legislation intended to replace the current system seems still to want to cover listed closed-end investment companies, even though there are clear reasons for them to be treated as an independent sector—they are not like open-ended funds.
Indeed, a highlight are the real estate investment trusts, about which I would be grateful if the Minister could speak today or write to me on. Will the new legislation the Government have proposed include companies such as British Land and Landsec as listed investment companies under the CCI regime? Currently, that seems to be what is implied: they will be classed as CCIs, which would be a significant issue in the market. Does the Minister know of any other country that treats its investment companies, such as REITs, as if they were consumer composite investments?
The CEO of the FCA said, in his reply to the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee:
“Under the Consumer Duty, platform firms should be determining value and listing for retail consumers on a holistic basis, rather than any single data line in the EMT”.
That means that the current practice in the markets is not working for the consumer. I ask the Minister to respond to us with the Government’s attitude to what is happening, as the retail platforms seem to be deliberately not complying with the Government’s wishes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this House has heard from three experts, and it will now hear from a layman—I will be extremely brief. My position and that of these Benches is very strongly to support the Bill. As we have heard, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lady Bowles, listed closed-end investment companies are absolutely fundamental to investments in longer-term, more illiquid activities exactly of the kind the Chancellor has discussed promoting.
I want to disabuse some of the conversation suggesting that the Bill actually increases risk. The Bill overturns an error in the existing regulatory arrangement that, in effect, forces a double-counting of costs for holistic closed-end investment companies, versus other kinds of funds. It is simply an error that has resulted from the complex layers of regulation and legislation.
Like others, I congratulate the Government on having very quickly taken some steps to bring in two SIs, and the FCA on having declared forbearance while the detail is worked through. The reality is, however, that we cannot let this drag on from day to day because it is having a very immediate impact. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about new companies, but it is basically driving this industry out of the country. We have to act faster.
The two statutory instruments, the forbearance and the FCA were important steps forward, but are not sufficient as they have missed out some key elements. Those key elements need to be tackled immediately. The quickest way the Government could do it is to give fair weather to this Bill.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for all she has done on this topic and for bringing forward the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her work on this.
It is remarkable, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, that we need to look at the fees and how they are shown for these kinds of investments. After all, we have a very traditional structure of investing in this country, and they have wound up being compared to exchange-traded funds, which come from a totally different history of regulation, as they come from the mutual fund industry. It is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said: it is just a mistake how we come to be in this position. We thank the Government for taking things forward.
We discussed the importance of promoting economic growth within the financial regulations as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act last year. The importance of long-term investment is clearly an objective of the current Government. Listed investment companies are of course in part investment vehicles for longer-term investments, like infrastructure. They give investors exposure both to other listed companies and to unlisted investments. They were historically and substantially owned by insurance companies but, over time, have become attractive forms of investment for private client investors. Therefore, the fee comparison issue matters and must be disclosed properly. Some of these disclosures have been attempted in the accompanying information disclosures, but comparison is then difficult. While this may be a technical disclosure issue, it inevitably becomes a cost of capital issue and an example of where regulation weighs on investment.
The Bill will be very helpful in addressing a real issue right now in asset management. The Bill should reinforce the United Kingdom’s financial markets, increase transparency and protect the interests of both institutional and retail investors. The Bill allows individuals, pension funds and other stakeholders to align their investments with their goals, values and risk tolerances.
The UK’s financial sector has long been one of the cornerstones of our economy and an attraction for global capital. This Bill, in creating, clearer guidelines and definitions, will not only protect investors but enhance the credibility of UK-listed investment companies, and strengthen a form of investing that can benefit the UK economy more broadly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on securing this important Second Reading, and thank her for her engagement on this issue so far. The Bill seeks to address an important concern for the sector which arises from assimilated EU law, and I am grateful for her work, and that of other Members of this House, to raise awareness of this issue.
Representing over 30% of the FTSE 250 and investing in over £250 billion of assets, investment trusts are a British invention dating back 150 years, which nevertheless play a significant role in the Government’s growth mission. Having said that, I must express reservations about the Bill.
As the noble Baroness has rightly identified, EU-derived legislation related to retail disclosure is not fit for UK markets. This is something on which the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority and many Members of this House agree. It is also an area in which the Government are already taking forward action at pace, to address industry concerns.
The packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation— PRIIPs—was originally meant to provide more transparent and standardised disclosure for retail investors across the European Union. There are many problems with PRIIPs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, stressed, and as this House is well aware. It is prescriptive, misleading to retail investors, and prioritises comparability at the expense of consumer understanding.
The Government are therefore committed to replacing the PRIIPs regulation with a new framework for consumer composite investments, and laid legislation to deliver this last month. This will provide the FCA with the appropriate powers to deliver a new disclosure regime which is more proportionate and tailored to UK markets and firms, including for investment trusts.
However, I recognise concerns from industry that PRIIPs cost disclosure requirements have had unintended consequences for the investment trust sector and its ability to fundraise. This is why the Government have also taken exceptional action to temporarily exempt investment trusts from cost disclosure regulation under PRIIPs. Legislation to deliver this reform was debated by this House earlier this week and I know that a number of noble Lords here were part of that debate. As the noble Baroness will know, the House passed the Government’s legislation on this yesterday. I urge all noble Lords who continue to have concerns to embrace the FCA consultation that will follow the adoption of those SIs.
This approach is intended as an interim measure to support firms as we finalise the replacement CCI regime. Recognising that the pace of legislative reform can be slow, the FCA had already implemented regulatory forbearance, so that firms were able to take advantage of this in advance of legislation taking effect. Given that investment trusts market directly to retail investors, it is right that they must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance to support consumer understanding. Like open-ended funds, investment trusts have management fees and an active investment strategy, which influence the returns provided to investors. While I agree that the current system of cost disclosure is not fit for purpose, in the long term, our reforms under the CCI regime will create bespoke and tailored rules for investment trusts.
Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is an important part of ensuring healthy capital markets. Together, the instruments which the Government have already debated will enable the FCA to holistically reform cost disclosure, addressing issues with current disclosure requirements, including for costs. Meanwhile, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that we are on the same page on the need to deliver economic growth and we believe that the measures we are taking in support of these actions will help the sector to become more competitive.
I hope that that brief summary will provide noble Lords with some reassurance, but there were some specific questions which I will attempt to respond to. Going back to the issue of the FCA’s forbearance statement, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson raised, following the Government’s announcement that we would exclude investment trusts from PRIIPs in the interim, the FCA issued a statement on its own forbearance, in line with these intended reforms. As the FCA has stated, its forbearance is intended to apply along the distribution chain to any firm carrying out business relating to these products, including manufacturing, distribution or marketing.
All firms must, however, continue to comply with other relevant rules and regulations, including the consumer duty and the requirement to ensure that communications are fair, clear and not misleading. The PRIIPs (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations will give legislative certainty to firms ahead of the implementation of the new CCI regime. While I recognise that there may be some frustrations in the sector, the operation of the FCA’s forbearance is, at the end of the day, a matter for industry and the regulator.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, stressed concerns about misleading disclosures. As noble Lords will know, investment trusts, like open-ended trusts and unlike shares in other companies, have an active investment strategy and associated fees. It is right that these costs should be disclosed to retail investors through tailored disclosure. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the prescriptive cost disclosure methodology required by the PRIIPs regulation does not reflect the actual cost of investing in these closed-end funds. The proposed new CCI regime will provide more useful and relevant disclosure to retail investors and more flexibility for tailored disclosure to clients, and will be less burdensome for firms to produce.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked why investment trusts are going to be subject to the CCI regime. The proposed new CCI regime will provide more useful and relevant disclosure to retail investors, more flexibility to tailor disclosure to clients, and will be less burdensome for firms to produce. It is right that investment trusts, like other products which directly market to retail investors, must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance for retail investors. The FCA will use the flexibility provided by the statutory instrument to ensure that those disclosures are tailored to reflect UK markets and firms, and to meet the needs of investors.
In response to the specific question of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, this regime will apply to all investment trusts, and they will be required to provide disclosure to retail investors.
I hope I have answered all the questions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and all noble Lords for their broad support for what the Government are doing. I understand that they want to take this issue further, but I hope I have managed to answer the questions raised today. I echo where I started: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued championing of the investment trust sector and for bringing her concerns to the Government’s attention. However, I hope that, on the basis of the specific issues and reassurances I have outlined today concerning the Government’s ongoing legislative programme, she will agree not to pursue her Bill.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Bill. I welcome the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson: that I phone up the Chancellor and explain how much money has been missing.
Actually, it is quite interesting looking at the numbers, because there has been much celebration of the fact that the investment forum garnered £62 billion of investment. Well, £40 billion and counting has been lost because of this problem. If we wait until the FCA has come out with its rules and they have all been looked at, commented on, implemented and phased in—because it is going to take that long before they actually have hard effect—we are into 2027. That £62 billion will have been long overtaken by what has not been invested through listed investment companies. It is a question of, you can take a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.
Strangely—or not so strangely, as the case may be—the competing industry of open-ended funds is swaying platforms and others to say that they have to continue with the old way and ignore the forbearance or exemption, because the consumer duty requires them to have those numbers on the front page, which is where you go to on the platform. That is their interpretation of consumer duty, so they delist them. If the listed investment company tells the truth and says, “Dear investor, you don’t have to pay these fees—they are already embedded in the company costs”, it is barred from the market.
I am sorry to tell the Minister, and the Treasury officials who maybe helped with some notes, that they are behind the times. It has not worked. They can say it is a matter for the FCA and the industry, but the FCA will say that it is a matter for the industry. I really did not think that the conduct and stability of our markets had been handed to the industry. I thought it was up there as the No. 1 priority of the regulator, and that if the regulator did not do it, the Government had the right to investigate and launch an inquiry. It is not good enough.
I know they have tried. It took us the best part of two years to get there, and yes, something has happened, but there is a competitive aspect to this that is distorting. If that continues, this Bill is a vehicle that might prove useful. I wish it were redundant, but it would be useful if it hung around for a while, for officials to draw inspiration from—which is where it actually originated. For now, it would be a good move to retain its availability and see if it becomes useful. Therefore, I beg to move.