Grand Committee
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, in the event of a Division, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes. That is vanishingly unlikely.
NHS: Patients with Allergies
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that patients with allergies receive timely and comprehensive care from the NHS.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider this challenging issue with noble Lords who have kindly put their name down for this debate. I am grateful to the staff of the House of Lords Library for their helpful briefing as well to those charitable organisations that have contacted me with a wealth of useful background information.
At the start, I want to explain where my close interest in this issue arises. My 16 year-old daughter was diagnosed with multiple allergies as a baby. Thankfully, she has grown out of most of them, and I will never forget the astonished smile on her face when, having grown out of her egg allergy, she had her first bite of chocolate cake. Unfortunately, her severe allergy to peanuts has continued, and her father and I have twice seen for ourselves the reality of anaphylaxis, watching helplessly as our daughter suffered. We are fortunate that in all other ways she is a fit and healthy teenager, but every time I read, as we all will have, about the death of a child or a young person from an allergic reaction, I weep for the parents.
We will all have been moved by the tragic story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died at 15 after an allergic reaction to the sesame seeds hidden inside a baguette. It has been inspiring to see how Natasha’s parents set up a charity to improve the outlook for allergy sufferers in future. In fact, the findings of a pioneering Natasha clinic trial led by researchers at the University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton and Imperial College London are already transforming the lives of some children with severe milk and peanut allergies.
Allergy UK kindly briefed me about the scale of the problem across the country. More than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis over the 20 years to 2018, which tells us that an otherwise completely healthy person is more likely than not to be admitted to hospital following an extremely frightening allergic reaction during the course of today’s short debate, and, most distressingly of all, the data shows that the next death from anaphylaxis is likely to happen in less than seven weeks from now. As noble Lords will understand, every such death strikes what I can only describe as terror in a parent’s heart. Noble Lords can imagine what I am feeling when I ask, “Have you got your EpiPens?” every single time my daughter leaves the house.
When my daughter was only a baby, her GP, who was concerned about her eczema, referred her to an allergy research study at Evelina London Children’s Hospital just across the river from here, part of the wonderful Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Both there, and at the trust’s paediatric allergy clinic, she received wonderful care over the next 15 years. I subsequently learned that the trust is a World Allergy Organization centre of excellence, as is Southampton, which demonstrates that England has some of the world’s pre-eminent specialist clinical and research allergy centres.
These specialist centres are few in number and are clustered in the south-east. A child like my daughter, living near to a renowned specialist centre, will have access to cutting-edge research, along with the clinical benefit, while others elsewhere will not have access to even basic specialist services. Even where, as at Guy’s and St Thomas’, children and young people have the chance to get the services that should be available to all, once they start to transition to adulthood, support largely disappears.
Services for adults are very limited indeed. I was amazed to learn that medical training includes only four hours on allergies—contrast that with 46 weeks on gynaecology for all doctors. I certainly do not want that reduced, of course, but I do want allergy training to match it. The amount of research into allergies is pitiful when compared to other health conditions. Wonderful though the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is, does it not rather shame us that Natasha’s parents had to persuade food retailers to pay for life-changing research?
I am delighted to learn that the new Government are working on a 10-year national allergy strategy, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to make sure that this is used to increase training and research significantly in future. However, my experience, both as a mother and as a non-executive director in the NHS for 20 years, has brought me to the realisation that there is a yawning gap in the way in which the NHS responds to the needs of those patients who are no longer children but not yet fully adults. The transition from one to the other is challenging in many ways. Teenagers develop independence by taking risks and learning to deal with the consequences. It is important for them to do so; indeed, their brains continue to mature until they are 25.
What does that mean for teenagers with severe allergies? In the absence of effective treatments—I go back to the shortage in both capacity and research—the only way to avoid anaphylactic shock is to minimise the risk: never leaving home without two EpiPens; never eating food that might, for example, have been cooked in peanut oil; and always checking the ingredients of everything that you eat, even—perhaps especially—at a party in someone’s house, where the alcohol may be flowing freely and the lights may be down low.
When my daughter was a young child, she had an anaphylactic shock in hospital as a result of the testing of her condition by the allergy specialist medical team. As her father and I watched on in horror, the consultant who led the team treating her with adrenaline and steroids asked, after she was over the emergency, whether he could borrow my phone for a moment. He calmly took photos of her, pale and silent and not moving on the hospital bed. When we later asked him what on earth he had been doing, he invited us to look ahead to her later, teenage years. When you transition from childhood to adulthood, you do take risks, but having a constant reminder on your phone of the reality of anaphylaxis might just save your life.
In preparing for today’s debate, I have been able to explore this issue with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and, through it, with Dr Claudia Gore at Imperial College Healthcare. As a tertiary allergy service, Imperial continues to treat many young people until they turn 18, but, elsewhere, young people are discharged or referred on to adult services at 16. In the words of the foundation, the result after that is a real “postcode lottery”. Many of the young people with whom Dr Gore works have other comorbidities, including, in many cases, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and, in some cases, special educational needs and disabilities. These can make it much harder for them to navigate the world safely and manage their allergies appropriately.
This is on top of the fact that adolescence brings all manner of challenges, even without additional medical concerns. Having transition services that understand young people and the changes they are going through in that phase of their life, as well as the move towards independence, would be hugely beneficial in helping them navigate the world as someone with severe allergies. Dr Gore is clear: there is a real lack of age-specific life or support resources for adolescents. So, we need more people with expertise in allergy, but we also need more people experienced in transition as a specialism in and of itself, because helping young people navigate adulthood with a medical condition can play a big role in improving their outcomes.
The phrase that Dr Gore used, which stuck with me, was: “Transfer is an action; transition is a process”. In other words, young people need support to begin preparing for that transition in advance of the move up to adult services, and they continue to need to be supported. She made three other key points. First, there is a real pressure point here for the NHS because lots of young people are approaching the cut-off point at which they will transition into adult services, where specialist allergy care is sorely lacking. Where there is no specialist adult allergy service to discharge to, it typically ends up with GPs, many of whom lack training in allergies. Secondly, there is not enough expertise on healthcare transition and there is a lack of resource on helping young people with allergies with the key life skills that they will need. Thirdly, in view of how common allergy conditions are in the UK, integrated care boards need to have more allergy care in place, possibly operating in a similar way to how asthma care works currently.
So, just as important as more training and research for the new national allergy strategy is the development of an NHS service for patients transitioning from childhood to adulthood. The benefits of specialist health services for those between the ages of 16 and 24, say, could go well beyond sufferers of severe allergies, but where better to start than a condition whose treatment relies completely on persuading those afflicted by it to manage their healthcare and personal risks? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will commit to meeting me, along with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and expert medical advisers, to discuss the way forward.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate—with my horrible squeaky voice—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on securing this debate today. My concern is not so much adolescents as children.
In my hotel room this week, I was interested to find a card explaining what to do in the case of anaphylactic shock. This suggests to me that the concern about, and the volume of cases of, serious reactions to allergies is on the up, as well as the seriousness with which the hotel group took its responsibility towards its guests. Indeed, that is borne out by the facts: an estimated 21 million people—just under one in three of us in the UK—live with one or more allergies. For most of us, this can be managed and is not severe, but for some it can be life-threatening, as the noble Baroness has said. In the UK, between 1998 and 2018, more than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. While the number of hospital admissions has increased in recent years, the number of deaths, I am glad to say, has decreased.
Allergy UK advocates three policies to improve NHS services for people who suffer from allergic reactions. The first is to have an allergy nurse and dietician at primary level for each UK health region. That does not seem a huge ask to me but, apparently, there is a postcode lottery for specialist allergy services. Secondly there should be a national register to consolidate patient data across the country and track allergy diagnoses. Clearly, this would enable the identifying of areas where additional services were needed. Thirdly, prescription costs should be removed for those living with allergies to address the additional costs people face when managing their allergies. The estimated total cost is £3,000 per year; I tried to quantify that but had to give up. Suffice it to say that removing at least the prescriptions costs would be a very reasonable thing, because people live with these conditions.
Earlier this week, there was a reception for people interested in allergies by the Benedict Blythe Foundation. Benedict, a little four year-old, collapsed at school and died from anaphylaxis. Helen, Benedict’s mum, whom I met this week, has been campaigning for all schools to have the recommended allergy safeguards in place. Teachers need to be able to manage the average one to two pupils with an allergy in each class, but many feel underprepared to be able to deal with a child experiencing an anaphylactic reaction. Every teacher should feel prepared. Every parent delivers their child to the care of the school every schoolday. Surely it is the duty of the school to take care of the health and well-being of that child above all else and to hand them back to the parent at the end of the day as fit and healthy as when they went in. After all, if an individual hotel room can have a notice explaining what to do in the case of an anaphylactic reaction, should not all teachers who care for the children of others have that basic knowledge too?
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Allergy.
Allergy can be a life sentence. There is an epidemic which is going unnoticed. An estimated one-third of the UK population live with allergies, but the number of people living with serious food allergies more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, with the largest increase seen in young children. Symptoms vary, but in the most serious cases reactions can be life-threatening and, in heartbreaking incidents, lead to death.
I commend the work of allergy charities which campaign to raise awareness and offer advice to those caring for and those living with this life-threatening condition. I support Anaphylaxis UK and champion Allergy UK in its call for an allergy nurse and dietician at the primary care level within every integrated care system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has already mentioned.
The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, which was set up by her parents following her tragic death, has campaigned for better food labelling and now plans to launch a new education programme which will provide free resources to nurseries and primary schools so that children with allergies are safe and can participate fully in the classroom. I congratulate the Times on choosing the foundation as part of its Christmas charity appeal.
There is growing concern about the safety of children with allergies in school, and the recent report sponsored by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, reveals that many schools still do not have an allergy policy in place, despite a legal requirement to do so. Almost half of schools do not hold their own life-saving medication, and too many staff remain untrained to administer them.
It cannot be left to charities alone to deal with the allergy crisis; the Government have a key role to play, and I want to turn to the recommendations in the report Meeting the Challenges of the National Allergy Crisis produced by our APPG and the National Allergy Strategy Group. These include an allergy tsar, or lead, who can ensure that the national allergy strategy is implemented across government. It has followed several other key reports in the last 20 years, and all have consistently highlighted how allergy remains poorly managed across the NHS due to a lack of training and expertise.
There is a need for significant improvement in specialist services, as well as improved knowledge and awareness in primary care. With 5 million people living with severe conditions requiring specialist care, hospital admissions due to allergies are rising, and prevalence rates for allergy in the UK are among the highest in the world, especially among the young, yet specialist services delivered by paediatric allergists are available to only a minority of those with serious disease. There is a postcode lottery of care. The complexity and severity of allergy is placing a huge strain on the NHS, made worse by the small number of consultants in adult and paediatric allergy and the lack of training for GPs, who remain the front-line service for children and adults suffering reactions. Can the Minister give an update on whether this is being addressed in the NHS workforce plan?
Our report proposed a minimum of 40 additional training posts for allergy, as well as a minimum of four consultant adult allergists and two paediatric allergists in every major teaching hospital and large conurbation. It also called for all GPs and healthcare professionals in primary care to have knowledge of allergic disease, both in initial training and ongoing professional appraisal. Each GP practice should have a health visitor and/or a practice nurse trained in allergy support. As most patients are still managed in primary care, this is where resources should be placed. Local health commissioners should understand the allergy needs of their population and ensure access to adult and paediatric consultants.
I was shocked to read in the Lancet this September that people from lower-income areas were least likely to be prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors. As a mother of an anaphylactic son, I know how vital it is to carry these life-saving devices. I welcome the Government’s commitment to allow the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, established in 2023, to continue to identify priority areas for improving the quality of life of people with allergies. I look forward to the outcome of the National Allergy Strategy Group’s consultation to produce a much-needed 10-year strategy to address the issue of allergy in the UK.
In conclusion, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can give a positive reply to the many calls for the Government to appoint a national allergy lead this year.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for this debate and for such an excellent introduction. I associate myself with every point made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friend Lady Healy. There is a strong view, from those who have some understanding of this matter, on the need to take significant action to upgrade where we are.
I state my interest, which is pretty similar to many others in that I am the father of two children who have allergies—one to a much more severe extent. I feel acutely that we were incredibly fortunate, when first finding out that one had a severe allergy, that we were in the unusual circumstance of having adequate medical care to support him. I always worry what would have happened if we were not in such a position at that stage, and I am sure that is the terror many parents experience when they first find out.
In this country, there has been a massive increase in allergies, for a variety of reasons, as research has shown. The extent to which this condition has increased—including hospital stays for severe incidents, which has gone up to 25,000 according to recent data—is a matter of not inconsiderable concern. Many points have been made, but I will say that, in relation to NHS provision, for anyone who has gone through this process, the system, in moving from children to adolescents to adults, is really not clear. More importantly, it is distorted around different parts of the country, as is the provision of specialist care, and it is extremely difficult for GPs to manage this. We have to rethink how we do that.
We also have to consider more carefully the situation with autoinjectors. It was only a short while ago that the UK was out of provision of the most significant autoinjector. We had to buy one which was not allowed in many other countries because it was ineffective. Even today it remains a very significant issue, in many circumstances, that the injectors either fail or are inadequate for the situation. That comes down on many occasions to needle size and the size of body that it has to go into. The Government really have not taken enough into consideration on what we should do on autoinjectors, and I urge them to do so.
It is important that the Government increase their work with industry. We saw in the tragic case of Natasha how Pret a Manger responded extremely well. There are willing partners out there and the Government could play a crucial role with them. There are many location-specific issues, such as the provision of autoinjectors on airlines and trains, and as illustrated by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, which has done tremendous work on this, the most significant location outside a home is school, so we need to make sure we have all the right provisions there.
On some of the treatments, desensitisation therapy can be effective, but we have woefully inadequate provision for it on the NHS, and, even then, it is geographically specific. There is still an awful lot yet to do. The work of some of the organisations, such as the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, in advocating for some of these courses has been groundbreaking, as has its research. I too am very pleased that it has been selected again for the Times this year.
Underlying that, the idea of introducing a tsar is essential and one the Government must give serious consideration to, simply because of the range of things that are needed through the entire journey that someone—and their parents—facing an allergy will go through. Having something that connects it is essential, and if there was one thing that I wish the Minister would take away from this discussion, it is understanding that piecemeal measures will be insufficient. We need something which will shepherd this as we face an ever-increasing demand on dealing with allergies across the NHS and, if something was to be done, then appointing a tsar would be an extremely welcome addition.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this short debate on this important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath on obtaining the debate and on her excellent opening speech, and I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn.
It is a surprising fact that one in three people in the UK live with allergies—perhaps it will not surprise any of us in the Room now, having heard the opening speeches. I am one of those 21 million people, as I have a number of food allergies or intolerances, which have increased over the last 30 years. My allergies are not as serious as the ones that cause an anaphylactic reaction, but they do affect day-to-day living, as I have to avoid wheat gluten, rich dairy products and—at this time of year perhaps the most difficult exclusion—chocolate.
Avoiding allergens in products at home has become a little easier. Thirty years ago. it was very hard to avoid wheat, which is often in many products with ingredients labelled as starch but which is often wheat starch. I learned to cook with different flours, as I am sure every parent with a child with allergy learns to do, but they often had to be bought at health food shops. Now, large supermarkets have a section for “free from” or “made without” products and stock a range of gluten-free flours. At this point, it is worth explaining to those who are not in this world that these products are very expensive indeed. Small loaves cost more than £3, and many of the flour products are very expensive, so the point made about low-income families is very pertinent.
However, the most difficult aspect of day-to-day living with allergies is avoiding allergens in food when eating out, including at work and at school, buying food when travelling or on holiday and buying food from takeaways, because in that situation you have to rely on a shop selling food knowing which ingredients are in the products. It relies on chefs, kitchen staff, waiters and baristas playing their part in faithfully recording requests to avoid allergens and passing that information on to the staff preparing food or drinks, but that does not always happen.
An article in the Times highlighted that more than 50 young people, including a child of nine, have died in less than a decade as a result of severe allergic reactions to food or drinks bought in restaurants, cafés, shops or schools. We have heard in a number of colleagues’ speeches about Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died aged 15 after eating a Pret a Manger sandwich which contained sesame. As we have heard, her parents have campaigned on the issues in her case and been told of many deaths of other young people—almost all of which, it seems, were avoidable. They were shocked to hear of so many avoidable deaths. Her father Nadim said:
“When Natasha was growing up we didn’t know any other parents whose children were food-allergic and she was the only one in her primary and secondary school … Then we received thousands of letters when it became public from people who said, ‘We fear every day what happened to your child will happen to ours’”.
He also said that the common themes in the stories they were told by parents included a lack of understanding among catering staff about allergies and how serious they can be, or a human error meaning that they were given the wrong food product.
As we have heard, Natasha’s parents’ campaigns have been focused on two areas: Natasha’s law, an important measure that came into force in 2021, tightening legislation to force outlets that package their own food products on-site to provide a full list of ingredients on the labels, with any of the top 14 allergens, including milk, nuts, eggs and sesame, highlighted; and, as we have heard, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is funding a £2.7 million immunotherapy trial across six hospitals that aims to gradually desensitise patients to their allergens through everyday foods. On the number of cases, it is worth saying that, as an MP, I had two local cases within one year of young people who tragically died after eating food containing allergens, despite in both cases the young person or their parents describing their allergies and being assured by waiters and serving staff that the food they were eating was safe for them.
Allergy UK tells us in its excellent briefing that 62% of people with allergies say it affects all aspects of their lives, and I am sure all of us who are contributing here can appreciate that, but among adults with anaphylaxis 40% experience post-traumatic stress disorder because, as my noble friend Lady Ramsey said earlier, it strikes terror in parents’ hearts. Allergy UK also tells us that, despite hospital admissions for people with allergies being 615% up in the last 20 years and rising sharply among children, we have only 40 specialist allergists in this country. As we have heard, specialist services are not well spread across the country; the pattern is distorted. The NHS underutilises preventive strategies such as early allergen introduction; and treatments like immunotherapy have been rejected due to perceptions of the high short-term cost, despite the fact that immunotherapy drastically reduces the high cost of future emergency admissions and hospitalisations.
I join Allergy UK in hoping that the Labour Government may be more receptive to preventive strategies, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on any possible new preventive strategies for allergies. I also ask my noble friend to look at the call from Allergy UK for the Government to introduce a specialist allergy nurse and dietician at primary care level within every integrated system. With 21 million people living with allergies and so many avoidable deaths of young people and hospitalisations due to allergens, I hope the Government can agree to look at the gaps in allergy management within primary care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for introducing this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, whom it is a pleasure to follow, for bringing this issue to life with personal stories that go beyond the statistics and bring home exactly what we are talking about today.
Allergy services in the UK are at a critical juncture. As my noble friend Lady Burt said, with more than 21 million people affected, allergies are no longer a niche issue. They represent a public health issue, from life-threatening anaphylaxis to chronic conditions such as allergic eczema. These conditions profoundly impact individuals, families and the NHS yet, despite this growing prevalence, the UK’s allergy care system remains inadequate. The Government must act to bridge these gaps and create a robust, equitable allergy care framework, with the Government and the NHS at the helm of these reforms.
Let us acknowledge the scale of the problem. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have increased by 615% in the past 20 years. As other noble Lords have said, shockingly, there are only 40 specialist allergists; that is one for every 525,000 patients. For patients, this translates into a postcode lottery of care, with many waiting more than 18 months for appointments. Primary care also faces significant challenges, with most GPs lacking adequate allergy training. This leads to unnecessary referrals, misdiagnosis and poorly managed conditions. The strain is particularly acute for children and young adults. Food allergies, which can be fatal, are rising sharply in children, yet there is a severe lack of specialist support during the critical transition from paediatric to adult services, as other noble Lords have said. What priority will the Government put on these transition services?
The gaps in care are not just a human tragedy; they are an economic burden as well. Allergy care costs the NHS more than £1 billion annually in emergency admissions, prescription costs and referrals. Addressing this crisis requires systematic change, not piecemeal change, with the Government and NHS having to play pivotal roles. I ask the Minister: what will the NHS do urgently to expand the workforce? This includes increasing the number of specialist allergists and immunologists, as well as training GPs and nurses in allergy management.
A promising model was demonstrated in a pilot project by Allergy UK, where nurse-led clinics reduced waiting times from 18 months to just four to eight weeks. Some 95% of cases were managed successfully in primary care, saving not just lives but costs. What is the Government’s view on this pilot being rolled out nationally? Additionally, the Government should allocate targeted funding to recruit and train more allergy specialists.
Investing in allergen immunotherapy services is also critical. Although they are costly up front, these treatments prevent severe reactions and reduce long-term healthcare expenses. As many other noble Lords have said, we need to appoint a national allergies tsar or clinical director to lead a co-ordinated strategy. This role would oversee data collection, resource allocation and policy implementation—and, to put it bluntly, it would knock heads together to make sure that action happens. What is the Government’s view on appointing such a clinical director, and is there a timeframe for doing that?
Empowering primary care is vital to reduce pressure on specialist services. This can be achieved by embedding allergy-trained nurses and dieticians in every integrated care system, as other noble Lords have said. These professionals would manage routine cases, leaving specialists to handle the more complex ones. Where will the move from hospital care to community care fit in within the 10-year plan?
The absence of robust reporting systems for allergic reactions is another glaring gap. A mandatory near-miss reporting system for anaphylaxis, akin to the system in place in Australia, would allow us to identify emerging risks and act upstream. Will the Government look at such a mandatory near-miss reporting system?
Lastly, we must focus on prevention. Early allergen introduction and proactive eczema management in children have been proven to reduce lifelong allergy risks, yet these strategies remain underutilised. Will the Government prioritise funding for education campaigns and preventive measures? Improving allergy services is not just about saving lives; it is about improving the quality of life for millions of people. By investing in specialist care, empowering primary care and adopting preventive strategies, we can take important steps to transform allergy care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate, as well as for having some discussions before the debate so that I could better understand the issue. I am also grateful to the House of Lords Library for its briefing and to others who have sent briefings.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, spoke passionately about their personal experiences as parents, and especially about the care that patients with allergies receive during the transition from childhood to being considered adults. I myself know family members whose children decided to go to a local university rather than go elsewhere because they knew that their local hospital had the best treatment and were not sure what the treatment would be like if they moved to another university town. Other noble Lords have alluded to a postcode lottery.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said that such stories bring the statistics to life, but it is really important for us to talk about numbers. I read one report, I think by ITN, which said that 44% of adults in the UK have at least one allergy, but that includes asthma; other noble Lords have said it is one in three. Whatever the figure, it is far too high. We have seen, as the medical journal the Lancet has found, that the rate of food allergies has increased over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also mentioned that.
Plenty of those with allergies can continue to live normal lives, but there are an ever-increasing number of people whose allergies are debilitating. They cannot eat certain foods, and they are unable to use certain medications. They must constantly scan the list of ingredients of the food they wish to eat, either by reading the small print on labels or accessing companies’ or third-party websites, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, they have to pay more for gluten-free or other foods according to their dietary requirements.
This may seem obvious, but food is one of humankind’s basic needs. It is an integral part of our daily lives, and so it is only right that we take the necessary steps to help those with allergies. It was reassuring to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the advice that was in her hotel room should you encounter someone suffering a severe allergic reaction. The question is how we spread that from hotel rooms to schools and more places.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, spoke about the sad story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who tragically died in 2019 due to anaphylactic shock. Her case led to the so-called Natasha’s law, requiring all foods to carry a list of ingredients. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords are grateful, that swift action was taken by the previous Government. Indeed, it is a measure that has since helped countless sufferers of allergies to understand the food that they are consuming and the harms that they may cause.
We know, however, that more needs to be done. It is therefore welcome that the new Government are developing an allergy strategy. But what of the National Health Service’s role? As noble Lords will be aware, before the general election, Allergy UK published a list of steps that it wanted the new Government to take. As the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, has said, one proposal was that there should be an allergen specialist or dietician at the primary care level—the rationale behind this being that it would allow those with allergies to access specialised care, no matter where they may live. This seems a common-sense proposal, since it would enable those living with serious allergies to seek help with managing their allergies early in the process of diagnosis so that they can have a better quality of life and are not unnecessarily constrained by their allergies.
Noble Lords will also understand that there are resource constraints and that the Government of the day have to consider carefully where they allocate taxpayers’ money, given competing demands. I want to reassure the Minister that I understand from my time as a Minister the difficulties due to resource constraints and, sometimes, the practicalities of implementation, but that does not stop noble Lords asking the questions. Is this a policy idea that has been discussed within her department and with the NHS to work out its feasibility? I would be grateful for her assurances.
Like other noble Lords, I too wonder what more can be done within existing NHS structures. Some of the information is there, but how do we spread it nationally from ICB to ICB? How do we get it into schools? How do we get it beyond the hotel rooms? How do we make more people aware, so that when it is announced on a flight that nuts will not be served on a flight because someone has an allergy we avoid the collective groan and hear more understanding of those who suffer from these conditions?
Can the Minister explain what plans there are for all clinicians, including in primary care, secondary care and accident and emergency departments, as well as for other hospital employees, to be suitably trained and made aware of how to deal with patients who have serious allergies, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to? Has any thought been given to an allergy tsar, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned? What safeguards are in place to ensure that no one with allergies slips through the net and is administered medication that contains ingredients they should not take? The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about preventative strategies. What explicit preventative strategies are the Government and the NHS considering?
I know that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate and we look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Ramsey not only on securing this highly relevant debate but on shining a light on this important matter. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions, which were given through experience and with empathy.
As noble Lords have observed, there has been a significant rise in hospital admissions for anaphylaxis over the last two decades and it is clear how increasingly significant this matter is. That means that it is incumbent on us to lift our commitment to improving outcomes.
Anyone with an allergy, and anyone close to somebody with an allergy, knows only too well the considerable challenges and risks in everyday life, as we have heard. Very sadly, there are tragic cases of those who die from severe allergic reactions that could have been prevented. On behalf of all noble Lords, I give my heartfelt condolences to those who have lost a loved one because of a severe and sudden allergic reaction.
I thank my noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lord Mendelsohn for speaking about their children’s allergies and their experiences as parents. I also thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for making reference to her own experience. Noble Lords understand just how serious allergies can be, and the worry and anxiety, rooted in reality, that parents and loved ones feel. I too want to pay tribute to then outstanding charities that support people living with allergies in the UK, including Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. They all do vital work in raising awareness, providing information and support, and funding research.
Work is ongoing across government, the NHS, voluntary organisations and patient representative groups to consider how allergy care and support could be improved. Noble Lords made reference to the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which was established last year, met again just last week and continues to bring together all key stakeholders in order to inform where we go next. I am most grateful to that group.
In addition, last year the MHRA launched a safety campaign to raise awareness of anaphylaxis and provide advice on the use of adrenaline autoinjectors, which have also been mentioned in the debate. A toolkit of resources for professionals to support the safe and effective use of AAIs has also been produced, along with new guidance on their use. The guidance clearly states that prescribers should prescribe two AAIs to ensure that patients always have a second dose available.
I am very pleased that Palforzia, a new treatment for peanut allergy, was approved by NICE in 2022 for those up to 17 years old to help reduce the severity of allergic reactions. The NHS is now legally required to fund this medication for eligible patients, in line with the recommendations of NICE. That means it is opening up a way for thousands of children and young people to access the medication through the NHS.
This Government are committed to improving care for people with allergies and ensuring that they get the care and support they need at the right time and access to the latest treatments. I am aware of the inequalities that my noble friend Lady Ramsey referred to in accessing allergy services. I very much acknowledge the points raised by noble Lords, particularly in respect of the workforce, delays to treatment and care, and lack of information and support that some patients have unfortunately experienced. I consider that to be a situation that cannot continue.
Noble Lords have referred today to the 10-year health plan to reform the NHS, and I am glad that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the move from treatment to prevention. It is also about moving healthcare from hospital to the community, as well as analogue to digital. A core and central part of our 10-year plan will be the workforce, as referenced correctly by my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, among others. In our work to prepare for the workforce that we need now and in future, it is vital that we train and get the right staff, technology and infrastructure in place. In acknowledging the points made, I absolutely recognise the need for a multidisciplinary-team approach in this area. That will be part of our considerations.
I remind the Committee that this Government have made a commitment that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment within the first term of this Government. That includes those waiting for allergy treatments. As a first step towards this, following the Budget, we will be delivering an additional 40,000 appointments this week to cover operations and scans and appointments themselves.
With regard to the point about the national lead on allergy services, I understand that there is a need to do more, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, my noble friends Lord Mendelsohn and Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am absolutely aware that there is no national lead with overall responsibility for allergy services, and of the reasons why noble Lords have raised it. My colleague Minister Gwynne is putting this under active consideration and I will certainly ensure that I raise not just this point, which has been made so regularly to him, but the other points raised in this debate. I will also raise with him the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to rolling out a pilot.
On the point about a meeting, raised by my noble friend Lady Ramsey, I am glad to say that Minister Gwynne met the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation just last week to discuss how care and support can be improved. The department is obviously working closely with Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director at NHS England, and, as I said, there is active consideration of the point about a national lead. I will alert my honourable friend Minister Gwynne to the point about further meetings.
Once diagnosed, and with a management strategy in place—my noble friend Lady Healy spoke to this point —patients with allergies may be able to be cared for through routine access to primary and secondary care. The Royal College of GPs has added allergy training to the new curriculum and, to support existing GPs, it has developed an allergy e-learning resource. As noble Lords will know, this Government seek to bring back the family doctor, especially for those who would benefit from seeing the same clinician regularly; obviously, that includes those with allergies.
On the transition from paediatric to adult services, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, I absolutely acknowledge the challenge there. NICE has published guidance on the transition that we are speaking about, including recommendations on transition planning, support both before and after the transfer, and the development of transition infrastructure.
I turn to some of the additional points made in the debate; I will be pleased to write to noble Lords on the ones that I do not answer. My noble friend Lady Ramsey mentioned research. Research into allergies is funded through NICE—no, it is not. It is funded through the NIHR; I am on it. It always welcomes funding applications. We have also invested in research infrastructure; for example, Southampton Hospital is participating in a three-year trial funded by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.
My noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lady Healy, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to a strategy on allergies. Let me clarify the situation: the National Allergy Strategy Group is developing a strategy, which will come to the department. We will consider it, and its recommendations, carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, mentioned appropriate provision in schools in order to protect children with allergies. The Department for Education recently reminded schools of their legal duties and highlighted the Schools Allergy Code. Regulations now allow schools to obtain and hold spare adrenaline autoinjectors, and there is guidance on that.
On the important matter of prevention, as noble Lords will know, we are committed to moving from treatment to prevention. Some research shows that feeding the most common allergy-causing foods to babies and infants before the age of 12 months may prevent or reduce the chance of them developing food allergies. We will continue to look at that.
I am most grateful for this debate, which has shone an important light on this issue. I can commit to us continuing to work on this matter to improve things for those who suffer from allergies and those who are near to them.
Prisons: Imprisonment for Public Protection
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to reduce the size of the Imprisonment for Public Protection prison population following the publication on 15 November of the HMPPS Annual Report on the IPP Sentence.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my germy little self. I will try not to infect anybody else.
This is a bittersweet moment for me. It is great to see the measures that we fought for so hard for in the Bill come to fruition, but in my heart I know that it is all based on the faulty premise that all these prisoners could achieve release if they jumped through all the hoops and tried hard enough for long enough. Imagine an engine that was fundamentally flawed in its design, so much so that it was discontinued, and no more parts were made after 2012. For some reason, we are refusing to scrap that faulty engine, and many of the parts that might have worked initially are now falling apart or are irreparably damaged. If we were talking about a real engine, we would scrap it, but we are not talking about a real engine, are we? We are talking about human beings whom we have irreparably damaged by trying to fit them into the maw of a machine that has torn them apart in the process.
The $50,000 question is, if we are not going to do a resentencing exercise, what is the alternative? Further fiddling with a broken system is not going to do it. The prison system is, to extend the engine analogy, running dangerously hot at 97% capacity. Perhaps we should not expect too much until after the sentencing review and the introduction of a culture that is radically different from the “throw away the key” mentality.
I commend everyone who has worked so hard to produce this report, and the people who work tirelessly within the proverbial machine to keep it limping along. The report is seven months late. Even though it was completed in April this year, it was not released until November. Various reasons have been given, but with changes moving apace—we hope—it would be good to know what further progress has been made since April. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was particularly keen to ask this question had he been able to be here today.
There is a lot of information to digest, but also questions that, with hindsight, I wish I had asked before. On access to and the quality of the courses, I am still getting reports not just that prisoners cannot find the courses they need but that the courses are often not fit for purpose. I have been told that half of prisoners cannot access courses. With the system running at capacity, this is unsurprising, so my first question to the Minister is, what is the average waiting time for each course recommended for each prisoner? What work has been done to assess the effectiveness of these courses?
My next point concerns sex offenders. Four hundred and sixty-five IPP sex offenders have never been released, although some of the initial offences were fairly low level. I know that the Secretary of State before last had a policy of turning down every IPP prisoner sentenced for a sexual offence who had been deemed fit for parole by the Parole Board. Here, the Catch-22 of proving that you are not going to reoffend by doing something you have had no opportunity to do really kicks in. This will not do, but I do not know whether any special measures are being taken to fit sex offenders into whatever passes for acceptability for release. If the answer is obvious, and I did not read the report well enough, perhaps the Minister will write to me and not waste further time.
On reasons for recall, are there any figures available for this? From the report, it seems that the number of recalls has been pretty steady in the past six years or so. I would have hoped that the numbers would have decreased following discussions we have had with the Probation Service, which says that reasons such as turning up late for a probation meeting are now much more tolerantly treated, rather than simply returning IPP prisoners to prison. Is it fair to ask that question now when improvements are promised? Yet individuals and organisations have said that these reasons persist. The mean time on recall has more than doubled since 2015. One would hope that the new focus on IPPs will now cause that figure to drop dramatically.
On reconviction rates, this—of all figures—indicated to me what is wrong with the overly risk-averse approach to the IPP sentence and the treatment of IPP prisoners. Only 0.5% of IPP prisoners released were subsequently convicted of a serious further offence. I do not have access to this figure, so will the Minister say, from the current figures available to him, what percentage of “ordinary” prisoners convicted of a serious further offence were reoffenders? In other words, what percentage of normal prisoners—whatever a “normal” prisoner is—reoffended with a serious offence? I bet my bottom dollar it is more than 0.5%.
Is it not time to abandon this risk-averse approach and to change the culture that blames probation and parole services for failure and congratulate them on all the difficult work that they do? Nobody can get it right all the time, unless we keep every offender in prison—we are doing quite a good job of that at the moment. Do we not need a more realistic, balanced approach, a bit more like the one we give to ordinary prisoners today? The system works, to a degree, and, as far as can be managed without omnipotence, without locking up some people for life on the off chance that they might reoffend. There are prisoners dying of cancer, confined to wheelchairs, who are still serving an IPP sentence. Shall we build a bit of compassion into this wonky, dysfunctional machine of ours or, better still, design something else which is less likely to turn an IPP sentence into an actual life sentence? I welcome the PMB introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I will strongly support it when it comes before the House. If not resentencing, we still need an alternative to the dysfunctional system that we have.
I look forward to the contributions of other noble and noble and learned Lords who know a lot more than I do and to the response of the Minister, who is very much put upon to deliver messages that we are not always minded always to hear.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real honour and privilege to follow the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and to speak in such an important debate. I thank the noble Baroness for asking the Government this key question and for never giving up on the fight for justice for the thousands of people serving IPPs.
The annual report, which we are dealing with now, and the action plan are worthy and well-considered documents; there is no doubt about that. But what is missing is any recognition that the IPP sentence itself is a form of torture—at least according to the United Nations. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I believe that resentencing is the only way to end this torture.
The chair of the Justice Committee in the other place, Andy Slaughter MP, recently wrote to Ministers warning that
“the Government may have misunderstood the Committee’s original recommendation on resentencing”.
Ministers keep saying that resentencing would mean mass release with no supervision, but Mr Slaughter is clear that
“resentencing would not mean the automatic release of all IPP prisoners”.
Legislating for suitable supervision to manage risk will of course be necessary and indeed wanted by many of those in the system.
Mr Slaughter’s letter ends by encouraging Ministers, as we do, to consider again establishing an expert panel to explore options for IPP resentencing, balancing
“the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender”.
Despite the Prisons Minister’s concerns in last month’s debate, I do not believe that this would give “false hope” to IPP prisoners—not if the Government made clear that there was no commitment to resentencing at this stage but, instead, a commitment to consider the matter further. The expert advisory panel would be there to do just that by giving its expert advice to the Government on what a resentencing exercise, with public protection at its heart, could look like.
Ministers also claim that they are opposed to resentencing because they do not want to overrule or usurp the role of the Parole Board. That sounds reasonable at first, but, last week, an Answer to a Written Question submitted by Kim Johnson MP revealed that, since July, the new Government have refused to follow the Parole Board’s recommendations on the transfer or release of IPP prisoners more than 45% of the time. That is scandalous. Without wishing to sound cynical, some might say that the Government seem happy to hide behind the Parole Board when it suits them but to ignore its advice when it does not.
In finishing, I urge the Government to cut through the politics, to let Parliament solve the problem that Parliament itself created over 20 years ago, and to allow a free vote on resentencing in both Houses. This must be the fairest way to reduce the size of the IPP prison population, carefully balancing public protection with the principles of justice and mercy.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Question to our attention. It is almost impossible to improve on the passion and commitment that she showed in her speech, despite her struggling with a cold.
There has been improvement in the last couple of years. These poor prisoners are receiving a great deal more attention than was the case a few years ago. There are no bad people involved in this problem: everybody involved in it is trying to make it better. That goes for Ministers, officials, the speakers in the Room, the Commons Justice Committee and so on. Everybody wants to make it better. I fully respect the commitment and seriousness of the officials, particularly at the MoJ, who are trying to make the action plan work. But, in the end, there is a failure to grasp politically that, for a plan to work, it needs an objective. What is lacking in this plan is a clear notion of what success would look like. What are we aiming to achieve?
As far as prisoners who are out on licence are concerned, the great advances made through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024—it received Royal Assent just before the Prorogation of Parliament—are now being implemented by the new Government. I hope that that will help to deal with the issue of prisoners who are out on licence and that, in a sense, that issue will start to go away over time.
The problem is IPP prisoners who are actually in prison and, in particular, those who have never been released. I would say that an action plan should have as its objective the reduction of that number to zero—it has to be a reduction of that number to zero. At the moment, 11 have not served their full tariff, so perhaps we should say that, today, success would look like reducing that number to 11, but that is not a target in the action plan—that is not what it aims at. I am not sure what the action plan does aim at, except to make the system, which is very clunky and difficult—the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to this—work somewhat more smoothly and to try to make it join up. It will always leave this dilemma that the Parole Board will act according to the same criteria that will apply in every case, as far as the protection of the public is concerned, but with no recognition of the injustice done to these prisoners.
There will be a number—possibly we would all agree that there will—who will probably never be safe to release. Do the Minister’s officials have an estimate of that number or of its scale? I have reason to think that they have made such an estimate, but it is for him to say. We are now coming to the point where we will have to grapple with that figure and those people, because as you move people out of prison, perhaps for the first time, it gets harder and harder to carry on doing so. You will come to the people who will not pass this test. Do we have an estimate of that number? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is very committed on this issue, but I have not yet heard senior Ministers in the Commons start to express, and say things about, that mindset that shows that they now regard these people as victims rather than offenders.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, at the election we were promised change, and we constantly hear that that is the mantra of the Government, but what is fascinating is that this Government have carried on the same approach to IPP as the last one. It was a small and mealy-mouthed attempt at a little measured movement, but actually nothing dynamic. The same sense of risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to persists with this so-called changed Government. What is the change that has taken place on IPP sentencing? It is a complicated and convoluted system of changed possible tariffs, but, as this report indicates, for those who can possibly understand what it means, it does not really work. As one who visits prisons at least three times a month, I can tell you, from talking to IPP prisoners, that they do not understand it. They do not get it and they feel a deep sense of despair.
We learned today, from reporting by both the BBC and Sky, that President Assad held 100,000 people in prison. Yesterday, this Government announced that they want to hold 109,000 people in prison. What does that say about us? Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, it says that our inclination and the culture is to entrap people and, effectively, persecute them. At the moment, according to the House of Lords Library, two-thirds of those on IPP sentences have never been released for over 10 years. If any of us were put in the same position—held for a 10-year sentence and then another 10 years—would we be fit for training? Would we have the right approach? Would our minds be ready for release? We would be screwed up—and the Government want to pretend that this equals change. It does not; it equals sitting back and giving in to the panic of the public. In a way, the Minister needs to look to his army of civil servants around him, who I am sure are very wise but not very risky, because they are not inclined to meet real people and understand how they feel and deal with it.
Unlike the Secretary of State, who was pictured yesterday rushing around prisons with officers around her to protect her from meeting offenders, I really sit with them. What I hear from real offenders and real people is, “They don’t get it”. This report does not equal anything new; there is no hope in it and they feel great despair. Unfortunately, the culture is that if we can return people —the latest figure is 1,599 recalled to prison—it is basically saying their sentence does not exist any longer. We are no longer sending anybody down through the courts, but we are saying, “You did something terrible 15 years ago. Tap, tap—back you go”. What kind of mindset for change is that? It is not one.
I had a very interesting note from a prisoner—because I sit and talk with prisoners, and they write to me about their real lives—who went through in great detail what is wrong with the system. In his letter from an adult prison, he describes how, on the day of release, a young man was told to go and pick up his property, consisting of a phone, from a police station. Later, on the same day, his hostel room was searched by staff who found the phone in a sealed police bag. Not being allowed to have more than one phone, he was recalled. Six months then had to pass before he could be considered for an appeal. That is the culture of a probation service, a prison system, a ministerial system and civil servants who sit there pontificating about it, but do not meet and deal with human beings. For goodness’ sake, we need some sense of generosity of spirit—keep in the dangerous ones, but let out the majority.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I wish to concentrate on one aspect touched on by the noble Baroness, to whom I am grateful for this debate, and that is the way the recall system is working.
The problem is simple to state. The test for recall is, essentially, a low threshold and the test for release after recall is a high threshold. The result is that the mean time in custody after recall has risen to between 25 and 30 months, the equivalent of a five-year sentence of imprisonment.
The report refers to the result of a thematic inspection published in December 2023 and notes that the Government accepted each recommendation and published a revised IPP action plan. However, the base problem is not highlighted in the recommendations or the report, and the action plan does not grapple with it. I shall quickly make four points.
First, the test for recall requires the person making the decision to demonstrate a “causal link” in the current behaviour to that which was exhibited at the time of the index offence. Many of the recalls are because the person on licence has been late in returning to approved accommodation—I met one such recently at HMP Wormwood Scrubs. I simply do not understand how we can go on using this recall test for people who have been at least 12 years in prison under an IPP sentence. Surely, we need a properly focused test that takes into account the realities of IPP. Can we have that, please?
Secondly, while the test remains, the decision on recall should set out the evidence for the causal link. It should be written, like all good decisions, before the decision is promulgated, to ensure that the reasoning justifies the recall—that is called good decision-making. Given the extremely serious consequences of recall on the liberty of a subject, this practice of good decision-making should be required. I ask that that be done.
Thirdly, a review of such decisions is needed before this lengthy process before the Parole Board gets fully under way. If the IPP prisoner had been sentenced in a court, he would have had a right of appeal and the case heard by the Court of Appeal, if leave was given, in about five and a half to six months. Does a senior civil servant review the recall, both for the evidence and its proportionality? After all, the Secretary of State is responsible and accountable, and the knowledge of a review by someone directly accountable to her improves decision-making. Certainly, that is the experience of every tribunal—that if you have a review, it works to improve decision-making.
Fourthly, if recall is properly evidence-based and proportionate, what can be done to speed up the process of release, given what the thematic report says about the effect on mental health? Has the Parole Board got enough resources?
I have three quick points on unreleased IPPs. First, about 16% have tariffs of less than two years. That injustice is palpable, as they had the misfortune to be sentenced before the tariff was raised to at least two years. Secondly, as at March 2024, 32 IPPs who were sentenced when they were under 18 have never been released. Thirdly, as of June 2024, there were 37 who were 70 and had never been released. They will have served the equivalent of a 24-year sentence. There can be no doubt that we must look again at the way the release test works, and the extent to which the responsibility of the state for this stain on English justice is taken into account. The Howard League has established a panel to look at such issues, and we intend to report before April 2025.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, from whom I have learned a great deal since I have been in your Lordships’ House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on securing this debate and acknowledge and applaud her work in this area over years. I am grateful to the organisations that have sent in briefings to inform me generally and inform my contribution. Of course, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, in his absence for giving of his time to discuss this most vexed of issues. Despite assurances that progress is being made and despite the number of prisoners serving IPPs declining, it is an exceptionally slow rate of decline. The numbers of recalls and their duration has increased, as we have just heard.
We have rehearsed in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions the damage caused by this sentence to prisoners’ mental and emotional health and of the self-harm engendered, as well as ultimately prisoners taking their own lives, as nine did in 2023. It bears repeating the nature of the initial crimes that gave rise to these sentences. Thomas White was given a two-year minimum sentence for stealing a mobile phone but has served 12 years. John Wright, then 17, was given a two-year tariff for headbutting a younger child and stealing his bike—a very unpleasant crime, but he has served 17 years. Martin Myers received a 20-month tariff for the attempted robbery of a cigarette. I am not even sure that that can be accurate, but I am assured that it is, and Martin has served 18 years.
My own MP, Andy Slaughter, who is now, as we have heard, the chair of the Justice Select Committee, has apparently understood rather better than others what a resentencing exercise would mean. He is very clear that it does not mean automatic and immediate releases. I hope that we can pursue this further when time is found for my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill to be in Committee.
The action plan is of course welcome, but UNGRIPP asks: having given itself 12 months to see a change by using the action plan, what will happen if there has been insufficient progress in those 12 months? As there are no clear and measurable targets, what are the Government actually aiming for? In this, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. What are the strategic ways of monitoring progress?
I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that the use of language such as “in a timely manner” is not being used to obfuscate, rather than clarify what the plan is intended to do. I accept, as others do, that some prisoners have been so damaged by what the state has done to them that release for them is trickier. But endless incarceration cannot be the answer: we must find more and better ways to move forward for these prisoners.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, what a powerful debate this is turning into.
I shall focus on the part of the HMPPS report dealing with self-inflicted deaths, another symptom of this cruel sentence. The report shows that nine IPP prisoners took their lives while in custody in 2023. Action 8 of the action plan sets out some of the commendable steps being taken to support IPPs at risk of self-harm and suicide in custody. There is reference to prisoners being managed and supported under procedures with the rather convoluted title “assessment, care in custody and teamwork’’ or ACCT, yet of the 19 self-inflicted deaths in custody reviewed by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for his 2023 learning lessons bulletin, only five of the individuals were on ACCT monitoring at the time of their death. This indicates that much more needs to be done to recognise a prisoner’s IPP status as a potential risk factor and to identify the triggers for suicide and self-harm that are associated with this sentence.
This is particularly the case given the expert evidence, heard by the Justice Committee for its third report, that the psychological harm caused by this sentence leads to greatly increased risks of suicide and self-harm and can even prevent release because of the perceived risks of reoffending. Being refused release because of the harm caused by the sentence itself offends every sense of what is fair and therefore increases, in turn, the risk of suicide and self-harm. What a vicious circle that is.
It is not even just about the risks of suicide and self-harm arising for those who have never been released. Even in the case of prisoners who have been released, the effect of several recalls, or even the mere possibility of recall, creates its own risks. This is again clear from the ombudsman’s report where he recounts a case in which an IPP prisoner was recalled on numerous occasions, even though he had not committed an offence. He was traumatised and left without hope that he would ever see the end of his apparently endless sentence and was found hanged in his cell, even though he had again been directed for release by the Parole Board.
Earlier this year, during Committee on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the truly tragic case of Matthew Price was mentioned. He took his own life last year while on licence from an IPP sentence because of the anxieties he felt about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. It is indeed shocking when one is told that he had been on licence for nearly 10 years. That is the invidious reach of this cruel sentence.
What this teaches us is that whatever an IPP prisoner’s circumstances, whether they have never been released, have been released and recalled, or have been released and are on licence, they are never free from the sentence’s psychological grip. I do not get the sense from the action plan that the psychological damage caused by the IPP sentence, whether it is being served in custody or in the community, is given sufficient weight. Indeed, the action plan deals with prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm only while in custody. It does not expressly cover those in the community or therefore show an adequate appreciation of the need to view this sentence holistically. if one is ever to stand a chance of reducing these self-inflicted deaths. The action plan could be significantly improved by doing so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Burt for this short debate and all who have spoken in it so far. We should remind ourselves, as she did, that the work we are doing here is subsequent to the abolition of IPP in 2012. We are dealing with the cases of people who were sentenced between 2005 and 2012. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just outlined, tremendous hurt has been done to those people. There are now some 240 IPP prisoners in mental health institutions, and the hopelessness of this regime has led to 86 prisoners taking their own lives. We, the state, are responsible for this inhumane treatment. In many cases, it is psychological torture. Basically, this is an unjust system; that is now agreed across all parts of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, but the solutions to the problem are proving more difficult to grasp.
Action plans in the past were criticised because they did not have clear strategic priority, ownership, detail, timeframes and performance measures. The scheme as we see it now, refreshed, has led to reductions in the numbers serving sentences but the new plan will not mean an end to these sentences altogether, and the timeframe for the reduction in numbers is still slow. That is, in great part, as a result of resource implications and issues.
As my noble friend Lady Burt has said, there is limited scope for proper preparation for reintegration into society more generally. A member of the Parole Board who has served on it for 12 years said that he had
“seen the difficulties that hopelessness and the lack of opportunity to reform brings to people—some people have got worse in prison because of that”.
Lack of hope due to a limited light at the end of the tunnel is causing these problems.
It is very difficult for IPP offenders to engage in rehabilitation opportunities. This is made worse by the capacity issues in prisons, as my noble friend Lady Burt pointed out. On recall, both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed to the dramatic increase in the recall procedure to show that it is not getting better quickly.
Members have raised numerous questions on the current action plan, as has the Prison Reform Trust. I can sum up those questions in two that encompass what the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan said. What do the Government believe will be the measure of success with the current action plan? What will the numbers and expectations of successful outcomes look like? We need an answer to those questions. We need to find the resource for progression panels inside the institutions, so that we can work properly to give people a route out.
I know that I have only a few minutes to touch on resentencing. In that time, I will refer to the letter the Government received from the Justice Committee which points out that they never committed to introducing measures that would lead to people being released who were dangerous to the community. It lists in some detail what the proposals were. Will the Government commit in this Parliament to looking afresh at this matter, in light of the view of the Justice Committee and that letter? Will they, as a minimum, seek advice from an expert group as recommended in the committee’s letter?
We in this Parliament are useful in developing legislation. The Government may be concerned about bringing forward further legislation but, if there is a genuine concern, I assure the Minister that we on these Benches will support him to deal with this matter. Any resulting legislation would bring this miserable problem to a satisfactory end.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. It follows a very good debate on the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and we can focus on this important issue again. I spoke in that debate at some length but I have limited time today, so I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not repeat the points I made then.
We know the essential points. It is a long-standing issue and a real injustice. As has been said by a number of people, it is a stain on our justice system. Improvements have been made, yes, but more needs to be done. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, we all want to make things better, especially the officials, and a lot of work has been done. I have to say, though, I am not convinced. I recognise the passion and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, on this but I am not persuaded that comparisons with President Assad will necessarily advance the debate.
I hope the coughs we can hear are medical and not Whips’ coughs at this point. HMPPS’s report, which came out on 15 November, is very interesting. I would like to pick up a few points and I should make clear that because of pressure on my time I have not been able to give the Minister advance notice of these points. I am happy to have a letter in response and do not expect a detailed oral response.
On page three of the report, it says that HMPPS expects to see, as we all want, the number of IPP prisoners
“in prisons and the community”
—those on licence—reduced. Well, yes, but it is a little more complex than that. Do we want to reduce the numbers in prison, even if that also means increasing the numbers on licence in the community? Again, yes, so we may see the numbers on licence go up as a consequence of numbers in prison going down. Equally, we do not want to reduce the number of those in the community if they have been recalled to prison. We need to look at these figures carefully and not just in totality.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan asked, what is our aim here? What are we trying to do? I suggest that there must be an irreducible number of IPP prisoners, no doubt because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, the state’s actions have, I am afraid, probably made some of these people un-releasable. I will not get into the resentencing debate today but we have seen in the data a significant decrease in oral review hearings before the Parole Board: there were 1,317 of them in 2018-19 but only 792 in 2022-23. That is a drop of 40%. The rate of release at those hearings has remained constant, so one of the reasons why we are getting fewer prisoners out is that we are having fewer hearings. Why is that? Is it because prisoners with difficult cases are not being brought forward, or is there some other reason?
The second point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was about the number of re-releases following a recall. Prisoners are now spending nearly two and a half years in prison after a recall; I am concerned that that makes them very hard to release thereafter, once they are back in the prison system. Is this because there are fewer review hearings taking place? Are those two points connected? I suspect that they might be.
In the 30 seconds I have before the coughing starts, I want to make one last point; it concerns the number of IPP prisoners later convicted of a serious further offence. The report says that this is rare—less than 0.5%—but those are the prisoners out on licence. I am interested in the number of prisoners reoffending after their licence is terminated. We know that the reoffending rate in our criminal justice system generally is significant. I would be interested to receive—I have asked for this before but I still have not had it—a comparison between the general reoffending rate and the reoffending rate among IPP prisoners on release after their licence period. For comparison, I would also like to know the reoffending rate among prisoners whom the Government were happy to release early in the August scheme. Comparing those three points of data would be interesting.
To stave off any further coughs, I shall conclude my remarks at this point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this has undoubtedly been a powerful debate, with views expressed passionately. I have in front of me a reasonably lengthy speech in which I will address most of the points made today; if I do not answer of the questions asked, I will of course write to noble Lords.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her opening remarks and for securing this debate. The issue of the IPP sentence is one that continues to generate immense debate across the whole House; indeed, many of the noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate have been pivotal in ensuring some of the significant steps forward that have been taken already. The Government recognise the obstacles still faced by those serving IPP sentences, especially the 2,694 prisoners who, as at the end of September, remain in prison.
It is pleasing—and, as I say, to the great credit of many in the House—that the first phase of the changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have now been implemented. As noble Lords will know, the introduction of the automatic licence termination period has led to the end of the IPP sentence for 1,742 people who were on licence in the community up until commencement on 1 November this year; I well remember working with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on those amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, was in the opposite chair, if I can put it like that. The Government recognise, however, that this does not immediately change the circumstances for those still serving the IPP sentence in prison, and that there is more still to do in order to support these offenders to take the necessary steps towards being cleared as safe for release by the independent Parole Board.
Before I go any further, I am aware that many noble Lords will be familiar with the IPP sentence; however, some may not, including some listening from outside, so I will provide a brief overview before turning to the question at hand. The IPP sentence was first introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a means of managing high-risk individuals who had been convicted of serious specified violent or sexual offences. The Act was amended in 2008 to give the courts discretion to impose an IPP sentence provided the tariff was at least two years, or the offender was convicted, at any time, of an offence under Schedule 15A of the Act—top-end violent and sexual offences were incorporated within that.
The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and we are determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders to finish their sentences. At the time of abolition, there were more than 6,000 offenders serving an IPP sentence in custody. Since then, a substantial number have been released on licence. As of September this year, 1,095 IPP prisoners are in prison having never been released, and a further 1,599 are in prison having been recalled to custody as their risk could not be safely managed in the community. It is right that the release of any IPP prisoner is subject to a thorough risk assessment and that the prisoner will be released only when the independent Parole Board determines that the prisoner’s risk is now capable of being effectively managed in the community on licence.
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 irrespective of their remaining risk. 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 for any IPP prisoner through any partial resentencing.
The IPP annual report, published on 15 November, covers the period up to the end of March this year but also includes the latest version of the HMPPS IPP action plan for this current financial year. The plan puts a greater emphasis on effective front-line delivery in our prisons, challenging HMPPS operational leaders to ensure that each IPP prisoner has the right sentence plan and access to the right interventions, programmes or rehabilitative services to reduce their risk of reoffending. This is the best way to move them closer to being deemed safe to be released by the Parole Board.
Where these core fundamentals are in place, IPP prisoners can make progress towards release, provided they continue to engage fully with HMPPS staff working with them. The Government are determined to achieve this, including ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. As things stand, around 30% of IPP prisoners are not in a prison that can deliver the requirements of their sentence plans. The action plan, and particularly the effective delivery of the workstream that focuses on operational delivery on the ground, are the vehicle through which this situation must and will improve. Let me be very clear that we believe that these key actions will be the bedrock of significant improvements to the support and prospects of IPP prisoners. These are: the right plan, the right place, the right service and the right support for each offender.
The Government are determined to make the necessary progress on this issue. My noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, has met many key stakeholders and is building a deeper understanding of HMPPS governance for overseeing the delivery of the plan. Just last week, he attended the external stakeholder challenge group, and he knows that stakeholders will continue to hold HMPPS and the Government to account. My noble friend remains passionate about this work and will be attending the IPP Progression Board next week to engage with the senior leaders at HMPPS who are responsible for delivery of the action plan. He has already spent significant time with staff across HMPPS, and I know that he is extremely positive about the high quality of leaders and staff, both operationally and centrally, and their huge commitment to deliver effective work to better the prospects of offenders.
The refreshed plan is made up of nine workstreams covering required actions relating to operational delivery, policy and analysis. This includes important policies, such as a new one on progressive prison transfers for indeterminate sentence prisoners, published on 14 November, which provides, for the first time, a formal set of requirements designed to ensure the smooth progress of prisoners to access the required interventions they need. This is important, as it means that where an identified next step is agreed with the prisoner and those who manage their case, the necessary actions to transfer them to the new location can happen swiftly and with care about the inevitable disruption such moves can create for individual offenders.
The refreshed plan also includes the expansion of psychology services through the prison gate for some of the more complex cases. This means additional support for both the offender, for example, through bespoke one-to-one support sessions, and the probation officer in their management of the case. This level of continuity from the prison into the community is important in providing effective support during those often challenging early stages for offenders following release.
The refreshed plan includes a quarterly review of progress for all detention for public protection cases in prison who were convicted prior to their 18th birthday. This review ensures that the offender’s progress remains on track, which means that they have an up-to-date plan and are engaging with it in the right prison. Where there are any concerns identified, appropriate action is taken to try to address them. The refreshed plan includes continuous improvement of the internal IPP data dashboard, which gives HMPPS operational leaders important information about the progress of their specific cohorts. It includes prioritising IPP prisoners for important regular keywork sessions and sentence management activity in times of high resource demand pressure across our prisons.
Health plays a vital role and, sadly, we see some cases where health or mental health issues can impede a person’s ability to progress. These issues must be treated, and I am pleased that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to the Lord Chancellor’s request to consider the IPP sentence as part of his independent review of offender health. This will help us better to understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and enable us to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.
HMPPS is taking the IPP issue very seriously at every level of the service, notwithstanding that we are making progress against a backdrop of well-known prison capacity issues and the huge strain on staff resources to implement the necessary measures to tackle it. It is important that we allow the action plan, and particularly the front-line-facing operational delivery plans, a chance to bed in before we review their progress in March next year. I assure noble Lords that if at any point it is clear that more needs to be done, we will review all options to enhance the level and type of support delivered to IPP prisoners even further and take decisive action to deliver any which we believe will make a difference.
Finally, it is important that this review of progress also leads to the setting up of clear measures of success in the next version of the action plan. We will use the review of the current plan early next year to identify those measures and benchmarks against which we can all gauge future progress. These will be shared as part of the next annual report and updated action plan, which will be laid in Parliament before the Summer Recess.
The Government’s priority continues to be the protection of the public, but I hope that noble Lords can see that we also remain fully committed to doing all we can to support the safe progression of those serving IPP sentences. I look forward to updating the House on the progress that I am confident the action plan will achieve in the next IPP annual report next year.
Let me repeat my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and address some of the points made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked how many IPP prisoners will never be released. Obviously, I cannot give him a number for that, but I can say that we apply a red, amber, green rating to prisoners currently on an IPP sentence and, at present, around one-quarter have a red rating, which means they are not engaging with services within prison at all. I think that answers his question. I shall sit down now and will write to noble Lords on any questions I have failed to answer.
Homes: Existing Communities
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the supply and improve the quality of the homes people want, in the places they want to live, whilst ensuring that development does not adversely affect existing communities.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity of debating this subject in Grand Committee today. I pay tribute to the collective wisdom of the House; I know many Members have spoken before on this subject. I has taken me a year to get to this point, so I am very excited to be here at last.
One statistic tells us everything we need to know about the debilitating effect of our planning system: in the south-east of England, one acre of agricultural land without planning permission is worth around £15,000. That same land with planning permission is worth a minimum of £1.5 million. At a time of anaemic growth in our economy, the Government literally have the ability to create billions of pounds’ worth of value at the stroke of a pen. Of course, the effects of our planning system are not just economic. The UK’s housing market is socially divisive and deeply regressive and transfers wealth from young to old, poor to rich, north to south.
The sky-high cost of building land has one other perverse effect: it means that money that should be invested in quality, design, space and parkland is instead spent on acquiring land and getting planning permission. It should therefore be no surprise to us that new buildings are unattractive, always overpriced and, most importantly, unpopular. There is a vicious circle. We have created an anti-building system that makes building unpopular, so the Prime Minister’s ambitious and courageous efforts to build new homes should be applauded, as should the Deputy Prime Minister’s determination to release a fraction of London’s green belt, an area that is more than twice the size of London, for the homes that London desperately needs. I am encouraged by their enthusiasm, but I worry that these initiatives will have little or no impact. They certainly will not deliver high-quality homes in the places people want to live at a price they can afford.
It is instructive that in his recent article in the Times the PM exhorts,
“Whitehall, housebuilders, councils and everyone else to stretch ourselves to the max to meet the scale of the challenge we face”.
We have to ask ourselves why are all these disparate groups —bureaucrats, developers, Whitehall and communities —so obstructive? No other market in the UK requires the Prime Minister to urge all the actors involved to do better. The Prime Minister does not need to cajole the food, clothing, electronics or furniture markets into delivering better quality. I was encouraged by the Statement by the Housing Minister today. It was a positive step, but does it not strike noble Lords as strange that the Government are planning to spend £3 billion to help private housebuilders build houses at a time when the system is locking up so much value in unnecessarily expensive land? It is like the person who is wounding you offering you free plasters at the same time.
We seem to forget that the rules against which the Prime Minister believes we should all be stretching ourselves to the max are rules of our own making. We are being urged to fight a system of our own creation. There is a very simple and powerful reason why, since its introduction in 1947, planning has consistently produced fewer, smaller, denser, uglier, less desirable homes than we want. Every reform has begun with the implicit assumption that development needs to be planned by government. We have created a system that controls the supply of land and dictates where we live, what type of houses we live in and where we work and shop. However, government, at every level, national or local, simply does not have the requisite knowledge, incentives or resources to do that effectively. No guiding mind ever could.
That planned economies do not work seems to be a lesson the world never tires of learning. We plod through the standard list of excuses for failure: blame the plan, blame the planners, the developers and the blockers, blame everybody you can. The problem is not the people involved but the system that they have to operate within. Those excuses are symptoms of a deeper truth: planned economies do not deliver, and the UK’s housing market is no exception.
To use a building analogy, our system of building control is built on the wrong foundations, so changing the wallpaper and putting in a new kitchen will not suffice. The 1947 Act needs to be demolished and rebuilt on better principles, ones that achieve the aims which we all, ultimately, want planning to achieve: to have better quality, more spacious and functional homes in the places we want to live, surrounded by the land that we enjoy living in. I suggest that we need to start with an entirely different presumption: a system that starts by presuming that all land is developable but, crucially, subjects building to strict principle-based rules and regulations that protect the legitimate interests of existing communities and the natural environment. At one stroke, such a system would release millions of acres of land for development, dramatically reducing its cost while increasing the numbers of houses built and their quality, along with reducing costs to consumers.
Some people might assume that such a reform—the abolition of top-down planning—would be a free for all. Unsurprisingly, and perhaps fairly, such a suggestion conjures up images of a dystopian race to the bottom, with a nation covered in concrete. But there is a middle ground between top-down planning and a free for all: the same type of system that regulates virtually every other successful economic activity in the world, from food to cars, computing to clothing and chemicals to crops. It is having carefully regulated free markets, with systems that permit growth but prevent the sort of development that undermines the value of existing homes.
A new system of pro-economic, pro-quality building control will take time to formulate. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I do not have the time to go into the detail of what that system would look like, but let me start with three principles that should be at the heart of any new regulatory system we might consider.
First, and most importantly, there is the “love thy neighbour” principle. This simply insists that development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses—a principle that goes right to the heart of what people fear most about new development, and one that would incentivise the building of high-quality homes that look nice and therefore do not devalue the property around them. Not only do they not do so, but good developments actually enhance the value of incumbent properties.
Secondly, there is the “carry your weight” principle. This would require all new development quite simply to leave the infrastructure that it finds—roads, drainage, rail networks and more—in the state in which it was found or better.
Finally, there is the recognition that a great deal of land in the country is of communal value. It has special value to communities, so local councils should have the ability to designate that land as having outstanding community value, and that land would have the sorts of restrictions that we currently apply to all land. However, we would not need those restrictions because there would be so much other good land around that there would be no need to destroy areas of natural beauty. That is another great problem of the scarcity that we create in this country: it encourages the building of homes in places where people least want them.
One might justly think that these three principles are already embodied in our planning system, but that would miss the point. The system I am proposing is fundamentally different: it starts at the other end of the telescope. Rather than government seeking to force, cajole and plan the development of good building, it would instead focus on preventing bad building and leave the vast resource we have at our disposal as a nation—the creative energy, intelligence, initiative, capital and innovation of the nation—to deliver the great buildings that we desire.
Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today. Let us have the courage to start afresh, release the vast store of wealth tied up in land that we currently squander, put more trust in each other, love the future as much as we love the past and return this nation to another age of great building of which we can be proud.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a shareholder in Next plc. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, because he has just shown himself, as ever, to be a very big thinker. He is certainly the most gifted and capable business leader of our generation, but his speech also showed that he has big thoughts and a real view about how these things can be delivered as well, which will be one of my themes. I hope the Minister will consider what the noble Lord said very carefully and will invite him in: I would have been more than happy had this turned into an “hour for short lecture” for the noble Lord to outline all his plans, but I am happy to hear the contributions of others as well, as well as to make some very elementary points that I feel are important.
The first is that I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, makes an important point about the impact of housing developments on others. In the communities that we are looking to build, we have to be absolutely clear that the infrastructure is there. It is not just about the economic incentives, which I think are absolutely clear and were outlined very well in the last speech, over the nature of the planning system and the level of costs that it brings, but many of the challenges we face in social cohesion and belief in fairness have all played to the problems caused by development not having the critical infrastructure that is necessary to accompany the extension of wider housing opportunities—GPs, schools and other critical services. Those things have to be planned as well, not just the construction of housing but creating the right incentives for other forms of structure to be there.
Certainly, the Government have done a good job in trying to set the direction on increasing housing supply. They have a significant housing target, a muscular approach to land usage and are putting pressure on local authorities, but it is not enough, because housing targets are huge: 1.5 million over three years is a very significant number, and my concern is that it would be more reasonable to suggest that we could do 3 million over 10 years. It is very hard to deliver 1.5 million over five years for a number of reasons, not least the employment situation in the construction industry and the skills that are necessary to reach that sort of level. Not only that, but we have a huge balance of public sector versus private sector-led development to be able to wash out, and we do not yet have the economics to do that. The private sector is key to this, as is making sure that the private sector has the right incentives to do it.
Here, the planning system is critical. The data says that there were 15,000 planning officers in 2010 and 12,000 in 2020. I, for one, do not feel that this adequately reflects the problems in planning departments. It may well be that there was a drop of only 3,000 but, from my experience of planning issues, it is very significant to see that the length of time in which people are planning officers, where they are brought in and where they are from has changed substantially. I suspect that that involves a huge amount of churn, because the number of full-time planning officers in planning departments that I have dealt with has dropped much more markedly, which makes planning much more complex.
Any plan we have to massively increase housing supply will have to have a real sense about the timings and synchronicity of the plan, the delivery adjacencies, the people challenges and whether we can get the agencies and the role of the state in the right place, and there will be a price to pay, which unfortunately the Government will have to make sure that they can meet. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, extends the point by saying that if we were to have some very strong advanced principles in this, that would certainly also set the right direction for the future.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for initiating this short and very timely debate. I will refer in a moment to a speech that he made on 29 February on a similar theme, but he will not mind my saying that he is not one of the usual suspects who turns up to our debates on housing. However, his insight is invaluable, because he comes from a successful commercial background, providing consumers with what they need, which we have manifestly failed to do in housing, and he brings a clarity of purpose—and also a sense of impatience and frustration about the current system, with which I very much sympathise. Who could argue that where we are today is the right place on housing and planning? There was a very perceptive article by Paul Johnson in the Times on Monday.
Having read my noble friend’s speech on 29 February, I have some reservations about part of his approach. He proposed two simple principles to the world of housing, and what he said then bears remarkable similarity to what he has just said:
“I have time to suggest just two … It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the ‘carry your weight’ principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today”.—[Official Report, 29/2/24; col. GC 158.]
It also delivered some pretty terrible stuff that no planning system would permit.
I have difficulty with those principles, and I am one of the guilty party; I was Housing Minister for about nine years and Planning Minister for four. The trouble with the first principle is that it risks denying the country the new homes that it needs. After 41 years in another place—with those four years as Minister for Planning—I know that there are many people out there who will argue that any new development, however well designed, will materially devalue their homes or businesses. We have need of development, however. We need new pylons —who is going to welcome those?—we need new prison capacity to deal with overcrowding, and we need 1.5 million new homes to meet the Government’s target.
What we in fact need is a system that weighs the material devaluation to a few people against the wider benefit to society as a whole. That is what a planning system does and what a free market simply cannot do. A free market, for example, will not deliver the new towns that were delivered after the war and which we will need again. It would not have tolerated the compulsory purchase of land, nor would it have delivered the regeneration of Docklands by the 1979 Conservative Government.
Even if a market-led approach delivered the houses, what about everything else—the schools, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, or the medical centres and so on that need to go with it? What about minimising the impact of climate change by promoting development near, for example, existing transport interchanges? How would we develop social housing—now delivered through Section 106 agreements—without a planning system imposing conditions? The planning system captures the difference between the £15,000 per acre and the £1.5 million by obliging the developer to provide the infrastructure and the social housing. I am not sure how the free market that my noble friend referred to would do that.
I also have a problem with the second principle of leaving the infrastructure in the state it was found or better. My concern is that the “or better” would not be provided were it not for the planning system—either through Section 106 or infrastructure levies—which insists that the person building the houses also provides the infrastructure. If that is not done by the developer, by capturing the land value, the burden would simply fall on the taxpayer, which is not a good option.
Where I agree with my noble friend is that we need to have a system that ensures that there is greater certainty about where development will take place and to have a construction industry that delivers. I am sorry if I have sounded very negative about my noble friend but, having tried over the past 30 or 40 years to do what he wants to do, there are some real issues that I am not sure the free market, or the commercial approach that has inspired his career, would address.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for his very stimulating speech and for initiating this debate. I want to pursue the question of who is going to deliver the quality and quantity of the homes we need, whether that is exactly 1.5 million over five years or any other target. Is it likely that the current system, which involves the vast majority of new homes being built by a handful of so-called volume housebuilders, will produce what is really needed, at the right quality, in the right locations, with the engagement of the surrounding communities?
The current system depends upon private developers bringing forward their own propositions for the market they believe to be most profitable. They will build out at the speed that suits them without having to reduce their prices. Moreover, having paid eye-watering sums for the land, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, noted, developers frequently argue that they cannot achieve their yardstick profit of 20% unless they reduce the contributions they previously promised in cash or kind.
In the Letwin review of 2018, an alternative model was proposed, that of development corporations created by local authorities, but at arm’s length, which could acquire the land at a price that reflects the reality that obligations to the wider community are not negotiable. Quality place-making—the green spaces, the schools, doctors’ surgeries, sustainable drainage and the rest—would all be spelled out in a masterplan. Individual sites can be parcelled out to, yes, the major housebuilders, but also to the SME builders, housing associations, providers of student accommodation, older people’s housing and more. Then, instead of the development dragging on for decades, the build-out rate would be hugely accelerated by the mix of uses all being constructed at the same time. The previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 paved the way for the creation of the development corporations that could act in this way, perhaps based on combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Use of compulsory purchase powers to buy sites where values cannot be agreed represents an integral part of the equation. Some have argued that this requires further legislation because, since the Land Compensation Act 1961, speculative “hope value”—the unfettered market price devoid of any obligations—can be used to justify a huge price tag. Others maintain that a valuation that fully reflects the public-good ingredients can now be used. Can the Minister shed any light on the current legal position in respect of CPO powers for land acquisition?
The opening up of grey-belt opportunities presents a special chance for private, but not for profit and publicly accountable, development corporations to step in and undertake high-quality development without the current dependency on the volume housebuilder. Will the Minister comment on the idea of support for the setting-up of new development corporations, perhaps through Homes England start-up grants? Let us take back control of housebuilding.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for securing this debate, not least in light of the longevity of his interest in this matter, and his role in securing interest in this for the commonweal. I declare an interest in that he endowed the Wolfson Economics Prize with Policy Exchange, the thinktank for which I work. The last one he endowed was on the quality of our hospitals, not least their architectural and urban environment aspects, and I pay tribute to him for that.
I am also grateful for the range of experience of other noble Lords. It is always a concern, when one is further down the batting order in any debate, that people will already have said what one wants to say, so I am relieved to say that there is one dimension which has not been discussed so far and is an underrated aspect in public policy terms. At the forefront of the agenda of this Government, and what they have not done, is the issue of beauty and the shift in the policy on the very word “beauty”. Unless we build homes that create liveable places in rich neighbourhoods, reflect communities and aspire towards beauty, not only will we be making an error of historical proportions but we will be betraying the aspirations and values of future generations by saddling them with the recycled versions of the same housing crisis and the depressing quality of too much of our post-war housing that has afflicted so much of the post-war era.
As I say, I have been involved in this argument for some years. The late Sir Roger Scruton was involved with Policy Exchange as a leading advocate of the pioneering Building Beautiful programme. We played a part in recommending the previous Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which Sir Roger chaired. We have spearheaded moves to reinstate beauty in Britain’s policy lexicon and to ensure that it becomes an intrinsic part of our urban fabric once again. This is not an exercise in aesthetic cultivation or political partisanship. Beauty should not be the preserve of any one side of the political divide; rather, it is an essential element in defusing local opposition to new housing, thereby ensuring that the additional housing supply Britain so desperately needs is finally delivered.
There is, as I say, an idea that beauty is for Conservatives only. Of course, we all know that, for William Morris and Ruskin, the great socialist and progressive thinkers of the past, beauty was absolutely integral to their interest. That is why it is a source of disappointment to me and to others that the new Government have dropped the beauty criteria in their ideas—not because it was the policy of the previous Government but also because, as I say, the present Secretary of State for MHCLG had made clear that it would be part of an incoming Labour Government’s proposals. So my question for the Minister is: why the change? Why has beauty been dropped?
On the wider international front, I was privileged, a few years ago, to be able to welcome Marwa al-Sabouni here to London. She is a noted Syrian architect and the author of a book called The Battle for Home. One of the things in Syria that she most eloquently described was the destruction of the urban space by the now-fallen Baathist regime. It destroyed the urban fabric but also, therefore, destroyed the relationship between communities in Syria with tragic effect; that was not the only reason for it but, as she describes so movingly in her memoir, that was part of it. In a wider sense, the importance of an agreed urban space in forging community cohesion is, of course, another further aspect of the present responsibilities of MHCLG. Why have the Government departed from this, and what will they do to ensure that the spiritual and aesthetic benefits of beauty are once again restored to our national discourse?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when I listened to the Government’s announcement this morning, I was hoping to hear much more courage than I did. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise points out, courage and change are what is needed here. We know that the current situation will not do. The longer it persists, the more damage it does. Reversing out of it is a big thing: it will have big consequences, and it will need some big thinking to do it right. I really hope that this Government discover their mojo on that.
As my noble friend said, artificial scarcity over a long period has created house prices that are out of people’s reach. It is not resulting in good patterns of community building. It is not resulting in beautiful buildings. All sorts of things are going wrong. We need a different way of facing. I am attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested as one of the ways out of this: development corporations could help take existing communities onwards and also build new towns.
We have different requirements of towns these days. We want them to support a really good public transport network; we do not want them to be car dependent. A lot of that comes into how we want communities to evolve. Where we have villages, we want them to have sufficient houses so that they can support the local services they need. However, when it comes to towns, they need to be big enough too: they need to support good medical facilities, good sixth forms and other services. There are lots of things that should go into deciding what we want our communities to look like; we then need to find a way of expressing that, through the planning system, in what gets done.
I think that the concept of the green belt has had its day. What we want is communities with embedded green space so that people find green space and nature on their doorstep, something that is easy to access and part of their everyday life. What we want outside towns is spaces that we dedicate to nature, places that are preserved but are accessible by a bus route so that people can get out there to see something and enjoy it, but which are frozen so that we can look after nature in them and are part of the funding system to do with where people live so that they are not cast out on their own, dependent for ever on handouts from Defra or whoever, and are part of the integral economy of the urban centres. We need to rethink the concept of green space completely.
We also need to look at the regulations that we have imposed on existing communities. We can afford to let these places get denser. By using permitted development rights allow people to extend the houses they have, use the spaces between houses and add another floor or two. A bit of variety never spoiled a streetscape unless it was designed like the Royal Crescent in Bath which you might want to preserve. Most places can take variety. I have a Private Member’s Bill on this subject coming in the new year, and I very much hope the Government will support it. Beyond anything else, I am with my noble friend Lord Godson: we want beauty because living among beauty is one of the most healthful, well-being inducing things that you can offer to people and communities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this debate took a turn that I was not expecting which has made me entirely rethink what I am going say. I ought to declare from the outset my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the north of England. I do not think anyone else in the Room is from the north. We look at things rather differently perhaps from what we have heard so far today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a speech turning all our ideas upside down. I understand why people get frustrated with the planning system, and I am not one who says that the planning system is entirely right, does everything as it should and produces the housing and infrastructure that we as a country and as communities want and need. However, a more free market approach to housebuilding—all I have heard is of housebuilding—puts more power into the hands of those who are already powerful: those with land to sell, who are, in our current system, powerful operators; and those who are going to build those homes, who are already powerful operators in the system. It omits the one element in the planning system that gives influence, rather than power, to people in that community and that place to help them think about how they want their place to be.
A free market approach, without giving power and influence to the third element of the equation, is not one I want to be part of. That is because, having been in local government for a long time, I know that developers do not have the best interests of local places in their hearts when they start building. They are interested in acting exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, described: as a free market, building what they want, where they want to build it, without cognisance of the places around them.
There are many examples of developers who have taken liberties with the planning system and have not left the infrastructure as we would like it. In fact, they do not leave infrastructure at all; they do not build it. One of the main reasons you need a planning system is to put a rein around those whose objective is to see housing as a retail offer—or sale—and not as a place that shapes part of our communities.
I am mindful, having been made to think by the noble Lord, that I have not said any of the things that I had written down. One question that comes to mind, though, is: under that system who would build the million homes for social rent that this country and its people desperately need? It would not be as profitable, so who would do it? That is a key question for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. How do you then balance housebuilding and all the other interests local people have, such as the environment, infrastructure, public transport and avoiding flooding? How does that fit in? I cannot see it, and that is why we have a planning system. A plan-based system, even though it is not working as well as it should, is one that I hope we stick with.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise for tabling this important debate and coming up with a provocative presentation that makes us think. In planning, we always need to think. The temptation is always to carry on doing what you are doing, which tends to mean you get the same result.
I think we all agree that we have a housing crisis, and the current planning system is not working as it should. Two important points were raised. First, how do we build houses where people want to live? Secondly, how do we extract a planning gain that is in many, but not all, areas for the benefit of residents not landowners?
I will focus on building the right houses in the right places with the right soft and hard infrastructure. The greatest need for housing in many parts of the country is in urban areas. That is also where there is the best infrastructure. I note that, in London, we are shutting schools because there are not enough pupils; in Bedfordshire, we are building schools because there are not enough schools. Should we not be having more children in London—that is, houses?
That is one of the issues: it is incredibly hard to build on brownfield sites. This is why the previous Government came up with the proposal—I was involved in it—that there should be a strong presumption in building on brownfield land. I am quite disappointed that the current Government are moving away from that and suggesting that we should build on the grey belt. There may be a need to build on the grey belt but we should do everything in our power to build on brownfield first. We should also regenerate on brownfield and regenerate some of our older housing estates in many of our urban areas with gentle densification.
I add that, if we compare some of our major cities—for instance, London—to others, Madrid and Barcelona are four times as dense as London. Paris is nearly twice as dense. That gives a whole number of advantages: as well as being able to use not as much greenfield land, it means that your transport system is much better and that people have much better access to local services. This really is a very important issue.
I want to come on to some of the issues with the planning system and the one-size-fits-all approach. By way of example, in Central Bedfordshire, we were inundated with speculative applications because there was a big uplift in land value. They were all supported by highly paid barristers challenging our planning system. I talked to some of my colleagues in areas with lower land value; they were not facing that issue. Their problem was that they did not have viable land, particularly where they were seeking to regenerate brownfield land, so they had a different problem. I then talked to developers who told me how hard it is to develop in certain urban areas.
What we need is a planning system that gives local authorities clear guidance on what objectives are to be achieved then provides them with the tools to deliver those objectives. It needs to be a coherent and consistent planning system—something that I fear we do not have. I welcome the new NPPPF proposals and what is said on the outside of the tin, so to speak. My concern is that, with planning, the detail is always the problem. Although we all superficially want better houses, more brownfield and better infrastructure, it is the detail that really matters—what is inside the tin—and it genuinely worries me that we will continue to get this wrong.
Finally, several noble Lords mentioned the Building Beautiful programme. The previous Government had the Office for Place, a department responsible for creating beautiful, successful and enduring places. I am very disappointed that it is not being continued. I ask the Minister: do this Government intend to build as many houses as quickly as possible, regardless of their appearance and impact on the local community? We must focus on building as many new homes on brownfield sites as possible and, where they are not on such sites, on ensuring that they have the right infrastructure and that the community is taken into account. We need to increase urban density gently and do so in combination with regenerating communities, such that we end up building homes and communities that people want to live in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond for the Government on this important topic. What an interesting debate it has been. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for leading on the debate and for the ideas he expressed. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will take our best wishes back to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill; I hope that things are better for her over the weekend.
Our country is in the midst of a housing crisis after decades of not building enough homes. The impacts of this undersupply of homes can be seen in rising rents and housing costs, placing the dream of home ownership out of reach for too many and increasing homelessness, overcrowding and poverty. We have a crisis of affordability, making it harder for people to live and work where they want to and hampering economic growth across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to the thorny issue of hope value. I thank him for his positive response to our targets and share his frustration about the system. In fact, the CMA report on housebuilding set out clearly that the market has not worked for housing. Leaving it to the market just has not worked—but if Next built homes, perhaps, who knows? To address the housing crisis, we need historic levels of housebuilding, but it is vital that the homes we deliver are well designed and contribute to strong and healthy communities where people can work and thrive.
I will respond thematically first then cover the issues that were raised with me. On housebuilding, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for his comments. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been clear that delivering 1.5 million homes over the Parliament is stretching. We know that it is a challenge but we make no apology for the scale of our ambition. We need to pull every lever to deliver the homes that this country desperately needs. To do so, we will make more land with planning permission available and reform the market so that it is more competitive and delivers more homes faster.
We will not achieve our aims if we remain reliant on a speculative model of development that fosters slow build-out and poor competition. Next year, we will set out our vision for a reformed, more diverse housebuilding system in a long-term housing strategy. At the heart of our ambition is delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. That is why we have made a down payment on this through our £500 million investment in the affordable homes programme in order to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes, taking its annual budget to more than £3 billion next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the development opportunities in releasing grey-belt land and supporting communities through our planning golden rules. That is how we will unlock some of this development. We are taking the important step of reviewing the post-war green-belt policy to make sure that it better meets the needs of present and future generations. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, may have misunderstood the policy. We have made it completely clear that development must look to brownfield first. I totally agree with him about the density of building but we know that brownfield alone will never be enough to meet our needs, even if we provide the brownfield passports we have been talking about. This is why we are introducing reforms that will make it clear that local authorities otherwise unable to meet their development needs should review their green belt in order to identify opportunities to create affordable, sustainable, green and well-designed developments. In doing so, low-quality brownfield and grey-belt sites in the green belt should be prioritised as opportunities for development before we even look at proper green-belt sites.
I turn to the important topic of housing quality. Noble Lords have made a number of points on this; I will come to them in a moment. It is essential that people’s homes are safe and secure. We will consult early next year on an updated decent homes standard, which will apply to both the private and social rented sectors; this will ensure that safe, secure housing is the standard that residents can expect in both tenures. It will complement our consultations on introducing minimum energy efficiency standards to the rented sectors and will help both to give people warmer homes that are affordable to heat and to tackle damp and mould.
We will also apply Awaab’s law across both rented sectors, setting clear legal expectations about timeframes. This will ensure that all renters in England are empowered to challenge dangerous conditions. Together—this is the point I want to stress—these measures will ensure that homes are safe, secure and hazard free, tackling the blight of some of the poor-quality homes that we have seen.
On communities, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government are committed to the plan-making system. It is the right way to plan for growth, by bringing local authorities and communities together to agree the futures of their areas. That is the important thing about plan-making: this is what it is intended to do. This will ensure that local communities get the houses they need in the right place at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Local plans provide the stability and certainty that local people and developers want to see the planning system deliver, which is why it is very important to us that we see universal coverage of ambitious plans as soon as possible. That has not been the case in the past. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it quite clear that, where plans do not appear, she will exercise her powers to make them come through.
The Government recognise that providing homes and jobs alone is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities. The proposals in the recent government consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework include changes intended to support the provision of public infrastructure and to create sustainable, healthy communities. They include changes to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure, as well as the availability of a sufficient choice of early years and post-16 education places. Alongside this work, we are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions in order to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure.
I turn now to some of noble Lords’ comments, and pick up on those by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the three principles. I love, in principle, the “love thy neighbour” principle; unfortunately, my long experience of planning—I was a councillor for 27 years—means that I know that the harm that developments can cause is often quite a subjective issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. The principle is good in principle, but I need to think about how we might employ it in practice.
On the “carrying weight” principle, infrastructure should be available in all developments through Section 106 or the community infrastructure levy. That does not always happen as it should, and we are looking at that system to see whether we can improve it. Land of community value can already be designated in local plans, noticeably where there are national parks and habitat sites, but the point of a local plan is that such areas can be designated locally.
The noble Lord spoke about pre-1947 as though it was a golden era. It certainly was for my town because it was designated in 1946. I do not think that the people then thought it was perfect because when John Silkin came to announce the development of the new town, he was shouted at in the town hall and people put “Silkingrad” up across the railway station sign. I do not think that people were that happy about planning in those days. I also wonder about how the people of Aspley Guise reacted when Milton Keynes was proposed almost on their doorstep. Yet, now, it is one of our most successful new towns. We have to think about how time moves on in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about ensuring that our new towns are built to high standards. We are committed to ensuring that the new towns we are looking at deliver attractive places where people actually want to live. New towns will be governed by a new towns prospectus developed in partnership with the New Towns Taskforce. Developers will be required to meet theoe standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Godson, referred to beauty and design in planning. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we build more homes and places that are high quality, well designed and sustainable. When we did the consultation on this, consultees raised concerns about the additional references to “beauty”, which they viewed as subjective in nature and difficult to define and thought might lead to inconsistencies in decision-making. It is possible to set standards for design quality that reflect the context and character of an area and address layout, nature, heritage, public space, street design, active travel and so on, as outlined in the National Design Guide, all of which, when considered together, can contribute to well-designed places.
Land value was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Wolfson. We have implemented the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of compulsory purchase orders where there is justification in the public interest. We will bring forward further reforms in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn talked about construction skills. I have commented on this a number of times in the Chamber. We were very grateful for an investment of £140 million from the industry to help us with capacity in the building sector. We will have more trainees and increase capacity. We have invested in increasing the capacity of local planning authorities and in helping the market to thrive by supporting SME developers. We take all those issues on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to CPO powers. As I said, they are coming forward. We are committed to making sure that we expand the powers that local authorities have, particularly for new towns, but also to generate the development that they want to see.
I reiterate my thanks to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for a particularly interesting and important debate. I have listened very carefully to the points made, and I hope that I have set out the vision with which our Government will deliver the right types of home in the right places and that work with communities rather than against them. This Government will get Britain building again to unlock economic growth and ensure that our country delivers for its people. The reforms discussed today in the National Planning Policy Framework and the further detail will be set out in the long-term housing strategy. We will deliver change for our communities and kick-start the decade of renewal that our country needs.
Ukraine: Humanitarian Assistance
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for enhanced humanitarian assistance for the people of Ukraine this winter, and in particular for mental health, energy and housing provision.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we have recently had two major debates on the current situation in Ukraine. They concentrated mainly on the geopolitics of the conflict, the scale of NATO and EU strategic defence capabilities, the provision of weapons and resources to Ukraine, sanctions and the imminent return of President-elect Trump to the White House. In recent weeks, we have heard reports of offensives and counter-offensives on the front line, a rush to seize territory before any negotiations take place, the prospects of a ceasefire and a diplomatic settlement to the war and the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine. While all this continues to rage, the number of fatalities and casualties grows ever higher.
My debate today is designed to draw attention to the scale of the humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes and focus our energies on what more can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people of Ukraine this winter, including what assistance can be given by the UK Government and civil society. Ever since Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have faced almost unimaginable challenges, but this winter threatens to be particularly severe, with the deliberate targeting of power stations leaving many Ukrainians once again with no power or heating in the freezing winter months ahead.
A few weeks ago, I, along with other UK parliamentarians, met a group of inspirational female Ukrainian MPs. It was organised by the Ukraine-UK interparliamentary friendship group. Their suffering and, above all, their courage were humbling. I was particularly struck by what they said about the impact on children, so often the forgotten victims of war. They talked about the psychological impact on young children of constant air raid sirens, drone attacks, sleeplessness and periods of no power or heating, as well as the impact on their education and the adverse effects on their mental health.
They also shared harrowing figures estimating that almost 600 children have been killed and 1,700 wounded. Other estimates suggest that nearly 700,000 children have been deported to Russia, often resulting in citizenship changes, forced adoption and children placed under temporary guardianship—as it is called in Russia—effectively seeking to stamp out their Ukrainian identity. I am very grateful to the Library for its excellent research briefing, which highlighted that, according to UN agencies, since the full-scale invasion began, 5 million refugees from Ukraine have been recorded globally, more than 3.5 million people are estimated to be displaced inside Ukraine and—this is of key importance today—more than 14.6 million people inside Ukraine are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.
I want to spell out in a bit more detail what that means. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the humanitarian situation in Ukraine worsened in August and September due to intensified attacks. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports that in September more than 1,400 deaths and injuries were verified, the highest number since the start of the full-scale invasion. Homes, hospitals and schools have been damaged, in addition to the disruption of other essential services, including water and electricity. The escalation of hostilities has significantly increased humanitarian needs near the front line. The World Health Organization has verified 66 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine. This represents more than one-third of such attacks globally. Under constant shelling and with limited access to critical services, shops, pharmacies and banks, people remaining close to the front line need shelter repairs, hygiene products, clean water and food.
Damage to energy infrastructure is expected to worsen the challenges civilians will face in the coming months, which are forecast to be the toughest winter since 2022. The impact of the continued Russian large-scale aerial attacks targeted on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and the power supply is disrupting essential services such as water, gas and heating in Ukraine, particularly in front-line communities.
The UN World Food Programme estimates that more than 2 million people in Ukraine are suffering from insufficient food consumption, including 20% to 30% of people in the Kherson area. Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that Russia was using drones to attack Ukrainian civilian targets in Kherson, including ambulances, police cars, fire engines and humanitarian convoys. Russian drone operatives were also reported to be targeting civilians at markets, petrol stations, cafes, post offices and aid centres, as well as dropping explosives in streets, playgrounds and public squares in non-occupied areas, injuring more than 500 civilians.
Turning to housing, the Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continues to be one of the sectors most affected by the war, with more than 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed, and close to 2 million households thought to be affected. Many thousands in Ukraine have been forced to leave their homes and are now homeless. While post-war reconstruction may be the only long-term answer to the housing crisis, urgent help is needed to provide services for people sleeping rough, including temporary accommodation and better housing support for people leaving the military, hospitals and prisons.
I shall now focus on mental health. The conflict continues to have profound effects on the mental health of those affected, including refugees, internally displaced people and those on the front line. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year ago, with particular consequences for children’s mental health. A recent Save the Children report found that, for children, the psychological impact and emotional distress of the ongoing conflict remained at high levels across the country, regardless of whether children were displaced, returnees or residents who have not fled. Save the Children is working with a local partner in Ukraine to fund social workers to go into communities affected by the conflict to provide mental health support among other essential items. UNICEF anticipates that more than 2.2 million children need to access mental health and psychosocial support. It points to problems such as depression, insomnia and anxiety linked to children spending thousands of hours in shelters while alarms are sounding.
It is inspiring to hear about the many organisations and individuals who are doing their best to help, and I will mention a couple. UK-Med, a frontline humanitarian NGO which describes itself as “born of the NHS”, maintains a register of NHS medics who travel to global crisis areas and work alongside local staff. The organisation has sent more than 200 NHS and international medics to Ukraine to deliver services including mental health support via mobile medical units and by training civilians and local health workers in mental health support. Psychologists at the University of Manchester have created leaflets for Ukrainian parents, developed from the experiences of displaced Syrian parents living through the country’s civil war.
I have focused on children, but there is also a crying need to support veterans. It is encouraging to hear that the British Army Medical Corps has been providing training to Ukrainian armed forces medics, including psychologists, and that two-way exchange visits have been made. Whatever happens in the coming months, there will be a crying need to support veterans of the conflict with mental health problems.
Finally, I turn to the role of the UK Government. The Government’s assistance, particularly financial assistance, tends to be channelled through international organisations, such as the International Red Cross, which has used it to provide psychological support services for Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Romania and Moldova. It is welcome that, in September, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that bilateral funding for 2024-25 included £100 million specifically earmarked for humanitarian aid. Can the Minister give any breakdown of how this will be used and what proportion is going to support mental health? Has there been any follow-up to the First Lady Madame Zelenska’s very welcome visit in March, when she met children’s mental health services in London to discuss post-war mental health recovery in Ukraine, particularly how best to build community mental health services for children from front-line territories who are dealing with trauma?
Specifically on this point, we have a well-developed, if obviously overstretched, children’s mental health sector in this country, both in the NHS and the voluntary sector. As well as that sector helping displaced children and young people with mental health problems it could, I feel, help share expertise and knowhow, with a little help from government, and provide training for those in the frontline of providing such support in Ukraine. Are the Government actively considering that, and would the Minister meet me to discuss it? I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, very much for having arranged this debate today. It could not come at a more important time in the history of Ukraine, given the pressure on it from Russia and the change in policy in America. The Minister may not be able to do so today, but perhaps he could make a Statement in a few months’ time about how that will affect Ukraine, our relationship and so on.
I speak today to address the critical challenges facing the people of Ukraine as they endure another harsh winter—we think we have harsh winters, but theirs are something else—amid ongoing conflict. Despite their extraordinary resilience, millions of Ukrainians face many crises exacerbated by the unrelenting attacks on essential infrastructure. It is absolutely awful knowing that their hospitals, children’s homes, buses, police cars and so on are being attacked.
Last winter revealed the vulnerabilities of Ukraine’s energy and housing system, leaving millions without heating, electricity or clean water. We know that without clean water it is impossible to cook vegetables or to look after children, and what diseases dirty water brings. The attacks on infrastructure have disrupted basic services, with 85% of Ukraine’s energy production capacity destroyed and rolling blackouts implemented to save energy. It must be very difficult not knowing when those blackouts are going to come. Over 1.4 million homes have been damaged or destroyed since the escalation of the war: 10% of all homes in the country. These realities underline the necessity for immediate, targeted interventions to repair homes, restore power systems, and deliver essential supplies such as solid fuels and heating appliances.
The UK must align with Ukraine’s efforts to support frontline regions, including providing hospitals and clinics with generators, mobile boilers and repair materials and, if possible, somebody to come and help them who knows how to use the materials. Although those in Ukraine are very capable, as we know from those who work here, it would be great if we could get some infrastructure from us to help, when it is safe, or from local volunteers or the military. These measures are safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable population, including older persons, children and those with disabilities.
The psychological toll of the war cannot be overstated. Prolonged exposure to violence, displacement and insecurity has left millions of Ukrainians grappling with mental health challenges. The number of parents reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year earlier. We can understand that, as children are now being taught in schools underground. I have seen some films and talked to some people who are working there. It is very difficult because the children are afraid. They are going down to safety for their education, but do not quite know what it will be like when they come back out. This has real difficulties for the children, those who are teaching them and their families. For those who have sought shelter underground for extended periods or witnessed the destruction of their homes, the trauma is profound. To be in darkness indefinitely is not good for anyone’s health, with no air or light.
Today I met an organisation I work quite closely with, Education For Employment, which goes to schools to encourage children about the jobs that are around—not just party planners or nurses. Children know about people’s jobs because of those who come to their house or what their mothers or grannies do. It has been approached by the OECD to come to help with work in the long term, and over video, to show children what their future can be and how it can help them to look to that. It has worked in these sorts of areas before.
The World Health Organization has reported over 2,000 attacks on healthcare facilities, further straining Ukraine’s capacity to address mental and physical health needs. I urge His Majesty’s Government to enhance the support for mental health services, including training for healthcare professionals if that is possible. Perhaps they could come here, or there could be a safe place where they train or have extra training.
The international community, including the United Kingdom, has a moral responsibility to act decisively. Last year, the UN and its partners launched an appeal for $435 million to assist over 1.7 million people through the winter, and we cannot let the Ukrainians down this year. The European Union has committed €40 million for winter preparedness, focusing on water systems, heating infrastructure and emergency repairs. The United Kingdom should complement those efforts, leveraging its resources to close the gaps in humanitarian assistance. I commend the Government’s pledge of over £100 million in additional humanitarian support for 2024-25 and their ongoing support for Ukraine. I urge continued action to provide immediate and meaningful relief.
I also hope that those cases being dealt with by the Home Office will be looked on favourably before anybody is returned, or at least that people are given a period of time, not a day, if they have to go back for some reason or other. Many people do want to go back to Ukraine and rebuild their country once it is safe—many of those I have spoken to do not want to stay here indefinitely—but at present it is very difficult.
The people of Ukraine have shown immense courage in the face of unimaginable adversity. Let us ensure that our support reflects the scale of their need and the depth of our commitment to their future.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who feels very passionately about these issues. I too welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler on her powerful and comprehensive opening speech. As my noble friend said, there have been many debates on Ukraine recently but inevitably, and correctly, they have concentrated primarily on defence and geopolitical issues. It is all too easy for war to become about statistics and to lose sight of the life or family behind each statistic that is shattered by the divisions of war.
More than a thousand days since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is welcome that there remains a united front across all mainstream UK political parties in support of Ukraine. There is a general recognition that Ukraine’s future is our future. We should be proud of the support we continue to give to Ukraine, but sometimes it is good to stop and remind ourselves of the impact that war has had on individual lives—the impact of having had your home destroyed by a missile, having no power, heat or light, and the inevitable impact on well-being and mental health.
I refer noble Lords to my register of interests and the various projects I have worked on in Ukraine since 2017, including as an ambassador for the homelessness charity Depaul International and as a trustee of the John Smith Trust. I thank the trust’s fellows in Ukraine for their suggestions and ideas for this speech.
Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 changed people’s lives in an instant. Personal plans, careers and studies were all put on hold. In March 2022, just after the Russian invasion began, I went to the Polish border with Ukraine at Przemyśl. Seeing the young children sitting on their little suitcases with their soft toys and pets in cages on their laps, and the elderly looking so disorientated, shocked and bewildered, was an overwhelming experience that I shall never forget.
The first thing that struck me when I saw the crowds outside Przemyśl railway station was that there were only women, children and the elderly. There were no young men; they had had to stay behind to fight. People had had to grab what possessions they could and flee for their lives.
We are now in the third winter of this war and all my Ukrainian friends fear it will be the worst yet. A Ukrainian colleague said to me this week:
“We are a critical juncture—not just for Ukraine, but for the whole democratic world. The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict. It is a battle between democracy and tyranny. Supporting Ukraine’s energy independence, whether through renewable energy solutions, flexible backup systems, alternative routes, or timely repairs to existing infrastructure, is about more than just keeping the lights on. It is about ensuring Ukraine’s survival this winter and securing the future of democracy itself”.
In terms of Ukraine’s energy supplies, the war did not start in 2022, or even in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. The seeds were sown long before, with Russia’s gas wars in 2005-06. Even then, Putin’s intentions were clear: using energy as a weapon to undermine Ukraine. Building pipelines to bypass Ukraine was just one piece of his broader strategy.
Ukraine’s energy infrastructure system is currently under tremendous strain. Frequent equipment failures, compounded by ongoing missile and drone attacks, threaten its ability to function. These challenges are made worse by the system’s outdated infrastructure and bureaucratic barriers that complicate efforts to secure vital equipment. I appreciate that we have already given considerable financial resource to Ukraine’s energy sector, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more in his concluding remarks about our plans to assist the energy sector this winter.
In particular, I have heard from colleagues in Ukraine that they urgently need critical equipment such as valves, gas cleaning and drying installations, regulating fittings and pipelines. These items, whether unused, decommissioned or donated, are essential to maintaining operations. I am told that bureaucratic obstacles, both on a domestic and international level, are currently slowing down the provision of such equipment. I suspect that, like me, the Minister is not an expert in these matters, but I would be grateful if he or the relevant Minister could reply in more detail about these energy matters in writing.
Supporting Ukraine’s energy sector and gas supply companies is going to be absolutely key this winter. That is something that President Putin is very well aware of, which is precisely why he is so cynically targeting Ukrainian power stations. Nothing saps morale like the icy cold and the dark and, as someone who used to work in Ukraine, I can testify to quite how cold it gets in the winter. I believe the UK can play a vital role in this. Working with our European partners, we must be able to find creative ways around any barriers to ensure uninterrupted heating and electricity supplies for millions of Ukrainian households this coming winter.
According to a recent report commissioned by Depaul—the homelessness charity that has been doing amazing and very important work in Ukraine for many years, but most especially since the war—3.5 million people are now internally displaced and the homes of 2 million households have been destroyed or damaged. Almost a quarter—22%—of people sleeping rough or in emergency shelters are displaced because of the war. The United Nations has described conflict as a “systematic driver” of homelessness.
To be clear, housing and homelessness were already issues in Ukraine before the war. In 2017, I worked on a public health project to raise awareness of tuberculosis in Odesa. During that project, I met many homeless people who were living with TB. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the difficult transition years following independence, Ukraine was already facing many social issues. But the invasion of 2022 has served to make so many of these issues so very much worse in Ukraine. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about specific support that we can give this winter to provide shelters and rebuild homes, as well as support the most vulnerable.
Living in Broadstairs, Kent, I have had the privilege, over the last few years, of being involved with an excellent organisation called Canterbury for Ukraine. Through it, I have been able to get to know many of the Ukrainians currently living and seeking shelter in Kent. I am proud of the warmth of so many people in the UK who have opened their homes to Ukrainian families. Understandably, many Ukrainians have chosen to stay in Ukraine; however difficult the situation becomes, it remains their home.
As other noble Lords have said, I know that the UK has committed to giving £100 million in humanitarian assistance in 2024-25, but can the Minister give reassurances that a sizeable proportion of this funding will be targeted towards measures for long-term programmes for internal resettlement to safer regions in Ukraine? It is also key that we continue to give support to vulnerable groups, including pensioners, low-income families and people with disabilities. This will not only help people survive the winter but lay the groundwork for sustainable social reforms, keeping Ukrainian citizens connected to their country.
My second issue is that of displaced children. More than 2.5 million Ukrainian children are now displaced; many face broken family ties, psychological trauma and limited access to education. Some 30% of the children who left Ukraine with one parent have completely lost contact with the other parent who remains in Ukraine. Some 80% of children whose parents are serving in the armed forces of Ukraine have minimal or no contact with them. The provision of professional psychological rehabilitation centres, training programmes for social workers and comprehensive family law reforms will be vital in the future, and the UK is well placed to give assistance in this regard.
To conclude, I stress once again, as I have in previous debates, that whatever happens geopolitically in the months ahead and as a result of the Trump presidency, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future. All my Ukrainian friends and contacts are hugely grateful for the tremendous support that the UK continues to give, both militarily and through humanitarian support, but in this most difficult of winters ahead it is more important than ever that we keep up this support.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for securing this important discussion. We all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to update the House on the progress of UK support for Ukraine.
Over the past few weeks, as we move into winter, the people of Ukraine have continued to suffer greatly. Putin’s war machine is trying new and insidious tactics to break the spirits of those brave people. On the morning of 26 August alone, Russia fired more than 200 missiles and drones in one of the largest aerial attacks on Ukraine. The main targets were the country’s energy infrastructure, in the most cynical attempt to freeze the country into submission—no military targets were targeted in that bombardment. As other noble Lords observed, around 8 million households, hospitals and schools were hit without warning. The capital, Kyiv, experienced its first unscheduled blackout since November 2022. According to the International Energy Agency, Ukraine’s energy system has been the subject of regular targeting by Russia since its first full-scale invasion in 2022, with attacks intensifying since the spring of this year.
On 28 November, after Russia’s 11th mass attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, President Putin threatened to strike again with new ballistic missiles, this time having nuclear capabilities. We are aware that he has made these threats fairly regularly. Thankfully, none of them has borne fruit yet, but we should bear in mind that someday they might. Furthermore, Ukraine is having to import increasing amounts of electricity from Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Moldova.
According to the BBC, on the subject of housing, at least 12 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since Russia’s first invasion. It estimates that 5 million have left the country and 7 million are still internally displaced in Ukraine. The Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continued to be one of the sectors most impacted by the war, with over 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed.
I am proud of the record of the previous Government. We launched the highly successful Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the latest figures showing that since the scheme was set up in March 2022 around 131,000 Ukrainians have been successfully supported to arrive in the UK, with £2.1 billion of funding provided. I am sure that work is continuing, and would be grateful for an update from the noble Lord when he sums up.
It is truly tragic that so many Ukrainians have lost their homes and I commend all the Government Ministers, civil servants and most of all the volunteer families who have helped to provide sanctuary for Ukrainians and welcomed them into their homes. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update us on progress and on whether the Government intend to extend this scheme. Furthermore, many of the visas issued under this scheme are set to expire after three years, with many expiring early next year. Again, can the Minister update the Committee on whether those Ukrainians will be able to have their visas extended?
Finally, the conflict has obviously had a severe impact on the mental health of the Ukrainian people. According to the Ukrainian health ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 had doubled since a year earlier. In addition, a study published in the Lancet earlier this year suggested that over 50% of surveyed non-displaced persons, 55% of internally displaced persons and 62% of refugees all met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. I can imagine nothing more traumatic than living in a war zone, whether as a soldier fighting the illegal occupation or as a civilian just doing your best to even survive. We have to highlight, as we do constantly—but we should never be afraid to say it—the sheer brutality of Russian’s campaign in Ukraine, targeting markets, petrol stations, cafés, post offices and humanitarian aid centres, and targeting the civilian population in playgrounds and public squares in many non-occupied areas of Kherson. None of these is a military target. With such distressing stories, we must continue to do all we can to support Ukraine. I know that the Government are doing that and we support them fully.
When the noble Lord summarises the debate, I hope that he will be able to update the Committee on what steps the Government are taking. As we move into the new year, we are all waiting with some trepidation for the incoming American President and the effect of any policy changes on Ukraine. I am sure that the Government are using all the diplomatic sources at our disposal to try and influence the new Administration. Some of the appointments that incoming President Trump has announced give me a little more hope; some of the statements from the likes of Marco Rubio and others on Ukraine have been slightly more encouraging. This really is an existential conflict for us in Europe. I argue that it is also an existential conflict for the US. We have to continue to supply the crucial support to Ukraine in its battle for survival. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I think the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are absolutely correct. Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a direct threat to European security. His comments reflect is that we are united in supporting Ukraine in its fight against this illegal invasion. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, highlighted the humanitarian situation as being dire. It certainly is. September saw the highest number of recorded civilian casualties since the invasion, and the numbers continue to grow. As much as 40% of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance this year. Over the past month Russia has intensified its air strikes, primarily targeting energy infrastructure, causing blackouts in several regions, as all noble Lords have highlighted. Its continuing assault has led to Ukraine losing over two-thirds of its power generation, leaving it to manage an energy deficit this winter—a very difficult winter.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, further attacks and low temperatures risk making access to power, water and heating intermittent, further aggravating the humanitarian situation on the ground. As ever, it will be the vulnerable who suffer, leaving millions without heating, electricity, clean water and medical care.
Let me explain how the United Kingdom is helping. We remain a leading bilateral donor and will provide over £240 million this year for humanitarian support, energy and recovery reconstruction programmes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked me, I will give a breakdown of this support. First, on humanitarian support: when the Foreign Secretary visited Kyiv alongside US Secretary of State Blinken in September—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade—he announced that the United Kingdom would provide at least £100 million in humanitarian support this year. The allocation is still to be determined, but this will bring the United Kingdom’s humanitarian aid to £457 million. This support is helping people, especially the most vulnerable, cope with the endless onslaught of the war, including by providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out, mental health and psychosocial support. Again, this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
The Ukrainian Red Cross Society—funded by UK assistance channelled through the British Red Cross—provides that psychosocial support to about 1,500 vulnerable children and adults in the front-line oblast regions in Ukraine. In practical terms, that means providing child-friendly spaces and support sessions for adults and older people. We will have given £9.5 million to the Red Cross to achieve this. We also support the Kyiv burns unit and train Ukrainian Red Cross staff and volunteers. As asked by my noble friend Lady Goudie, we also enable the WHO to rehabilitate professionals through stress management training. This helps to reduce the psychological distress and increase referrals for specialised care among healthcare workers and patients.
I move now to our energy support—another issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The UK has been working closely with Ukrainian officials and international donors to fund repairs and provide back-up power generation during the colder months, while also supporting efforts to ensure that civilians have access to warm places. During his visit in September, the Foreign Secretary also announced £20 million for emergency energy needs. Our funds, worth over £60 million, are bolstering the Ukraine energy support fund, helping to protect energy infrastructure.
When it comes to long-term recovery, we are supporting innovations across both countries to develop new technologies that can rebuild a greener and more resilient energy grid. Finally, we are also providing essential fuel to nuclear power plants to ensure that Ukraine does not have to rely on Russian fuel.
To turn to UK support for recovery and reconstruction, our non-military support is helping address immediate needs, including public services, while also funding rebuilding efforts in Ukraine. That is why we are supporting investments now and developing a pipeline of early recovery projects with partners to build local capacity to prioritise, plan and deliver these initiatives. It is why we are working with industry and development partners to improve access to finance for firms in Ukraine and extend war risk insurance cover to investors in Ukraine.
Finally, we are helping the UN refugee agency to prepare safe places for internally displaced persons. It has helped to host over 100,000 people in temporary accommodation across Ukraine. The noble Lord asked about Homes for Ukraine in the UK; it is a Home Office lead, but I will ensure that we write to him on that question.
An area that every noble Lord highlighted is the scale of destruction caused by Russia. That is why we are in no doubt that it must pay for the damage. The G7 will provide Ukraine with up to $50 billion as part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. These loans will be repaid using the extraordinary profits generated on immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion is earmarked for additional military support for Ukraine.
We are also holding Russia accountable by supporting Ukrainian investigations, pursuing an international register of damages and joining the core group with our international partners on the crime of aggression. We will continue to help the International Criminal Court increase its capacity to collect evidence and support survivors. We will not let Russia get away with its crimes.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom will do whatever it takes to support Ukraine’s self-defence. The alternative would be to confirm the worst claims—that international law is merely a paper tiger and that aggressors can do what they want. The suffering in Ukraine cannot be ignored. It is our collective responsibility to act decisively to end this war and work towards a future where a just and lasting peace can prevail.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, can I just ask the Minister whether he will meet me in the new year to discuss the particular support for mental health?
House of Lords
Housebuilding Targets
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what tools they will provide to local authorities to support the delivery of mandatory house-building targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including the recruitment and training of 300 planners and the development of the skills needed to implement reforms and unlock housing delivery. We have also consulted on proposals to increase resources in the planning system by increasing planning fees and empowering local authorities to set their own planning fees so that they can carry out their vital role in supporting economic growth and delivering 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I thank the Minister for her Answer. My particular concern is houses that have planning permission and sites that have been allocated that are not being brought forward. The LGA estimates that there are around 1 million houses with planning permission and around a further 1 million allocated sites that have not yet been brought forward for planning permission. What will this Government do to help councils get landowners, promoters and developers to bring forward those sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to raise this. I am pleased to say that we have today published the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out a broad framework of advice for local authorities. This is a particular issue, and we have set up our acceleration scheme to make sure that those sites that are stalled can be brought into use as quickly as possible. The department will work with all areas that have stalled housing sites to find out what the blockages are and make sure that we support them as they work to get those sites released as quickly as possible.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in her Answer to the issue of local skills, particularly for young people, which will be absolutely essential to fulfil the targets. But this will require cross-departmental working to assist local authorities to draw up strategies involving local employers, schools, UTCs and colleges. Can she assure me that this work is taking place at governmental level to help with devolving powers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am happy to assure her that we are working across government and with industry to deliver sufficient high-quality training opportunities and build a diverse workforce that is fit for the future. She is quite right to identify that this is a real issue in getting the 1.5 million homes built. To support business and boost opportunity, we are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, which will allow employers to invest in a wider range of training and empower them to train and upskill workforces for current and future challenges.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the large housebuilding companies have too much power when it comes to deciding what homes to build, where to build and when to build? Can she tell us how her Government’s NPPF can possibly be delivered without strong and effective “use it or lose it” sanctions to get the 1 million homes built that are shovel-ready, with planning permission already given?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to that as an issue. We have set up the housing acceleration unit in the department, which I mentioned earlier, to help with that. We want to be quite clear within the National Planning Policy Framework that, where sites are allocated, they should be built out as quickly as possible. There will be follow-up where that is not the case.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what consumer protection is in place for those buying properties off-plan that are never completed? I understand that this issue is currently unregulated. Will the Government think about bringing this under regulation so that those consumer protections are in place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. It is important that consumers are reassured that, when they purchase a property, they are going to receive it as purchased. There is a long-standing property law, caveat emptor, which means it is for the buyer to check out these issues and make sure, through their legal advice, that they are getting what they pay for. I will take back the issue about consumer protections and see if there is anything further that can be done.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, what are the assumptions about the average time it will take before the welcome new numbers of planning officers are in place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that there is no planning officer tree out there that we can go and pick planning officers from—I wish there were. Highly skilled planners are fundamental to running a proactive, efficient planning service for the communities they serve and ensuring that new developments are well-designed and facilitate local growth. We have set up a scheme with the Local Government Association to make sure that we are recruiting and training 300 graduate and apprentice planners, and encouraging some of the planners who have stepped out of the public planning sector to come back in wherever possible. That has proved successful so far, and we hope we will continue to increase recruitment at a level that will support planning for local authorities.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister had discussions about the landholdings owned by the Church Commissioners and the Duchy of Cornwall, something very important in the West Country? Is there going to be equal compliance on those landholdings as elsewhere in the country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the Church Commissioners are keen to have discussions, and that will be the case. All land within a local plan area is ready for consideration, but I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. I know that the most reverend Primate who was on the Benches previously was very keen to encourage those discussions, and we will continue those. I hope the Church will continue to be keen to support us in our aim to deliver the housing that the country needs.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, if the potential of rural exception sites were to be fully realised, it would make a transformative change for small rural communities, not least in providing the additional affordable housing that is desperately needed. It is frustrating because just before I came in I was trying to read the NPPF response to the consultation but I could not find it. Are His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a national development management policy for rural exception sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the Right Reverend Prelate for that question. We understand the need for particular consideration of rural sites and rural exception sites. I apologise that he was not able to access the NPPF on the GOV.UK website. I hope it is there now and that he will be able to look at it later on today. In the spring, we will produce a long-term housing strategy that will contain detail of how we think rural sites should be considered. In order to give him a specific answer on the NDMP, I will go back and make sure he has a written answer.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that small construction firms play a full part in providing the housing that is needed? Further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, how they will have access to the skills they need to fulfil that role? I apologise for my earlier overenthusiasm.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are taking a number of steps to encourage the use of SME building companies. Homes England has considerable control of the funding for affordable homes, and we have encouraged it to break down the packages on large sites so that they are suitable for SME builders. We will be providing funding to support SME housebuilders as well. In relation to skills, I refer to my earlier answer. They apply equally to the smaller builders in the sector as they do to large housebuilders.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, housebuilding is part of the process of dealing with those who are homeless. However, I have deep concerns about the range of evictions, particularly those faced by houseboat owners and residents. I have already raised this issue with the Government. What plans do they have, if any, to deal with the appalling eviction notices faced by people the length and breadth of the country, particularly at Chelsea, an historic site where people are now being forced from their homes—houseboats—where they have lived for decades?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important issue, on which he wrote to me this morning. I do not have an answer for him yet, but I will write to him on that subject. I drove past the site at Chelsea the other day, and the driver mentioned to me that this was a big issue in that area. If my noble friend will bear with me while I get a written response for him, I will give him a full answer.
75th Anniversary of Formula 1
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to help mark the 75th anniversary of Formula 1 in 2025.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Formula 1’s 75th birthday is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the sport’s long history in the UK. Formula 1 is a British success story, with seven out of 10 teams based here, and we look forward to continuing our long and prosperous relationship with them. While I am here, I would like to congratulate Max Verstappen on his fourth consecutive world championship and McLaren on its first constructors’ championship since 1998.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Formula 1 is indeed a great British success story. British drivers have won the world championship more than drivers from any other nation. As the Minister says, we are home to seven of the 10 Formula 1 teams. It is not just homegrown talent such as McLaren, which I too congratulate on its title; we also attract teams from around the world such as Mercedes, Alpine and, soon, Cadillac. Silverstone hosted the very first round of the drivers’ world championship in May 1950 and will remain home to the British Grand Prix for at least the next decade. As the number of people from all backgrounds enjoying the sport continues to grow, will the Government work with that famous circuit to make sure that it is more accessible by public transport, so that the UK’s largest sporting event can be reached by people, hopefully to entertain them but also inspire them into careers on and off the track?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I fully echo the noble Lord’s comments on Formula 1 as a British success story and completely agree with him about the accessibility of Silverstone. When I did a track day at Silverstone, the only option was to drive—on and off the track, obviously. In terms of next steps, the Government are always pleased to see sports venues explore new ways of improving transport access and we look forward to Silverstone and others developing such plans. If the noble Lord would like me to continue to have conversations with the Department for Transport, I will be more than happy to facilitate.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister has any intentions of recognising the 75th anniversary, is she aware that I would be very glad to help? I suppose I am almost the only Member of your Lordships’ House who was present at the Grand Prix of Europe in May 1950, which was won by Giuseppe Farina in an Alfa Romeo 158.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I was born in 1979, so that would be a challenge. I thank and celebrate the noble Lord for his work with grands prix and for ensuring, with his work then, that grands prix have been such an incredible success story, both here and internationally. I am more than happy to work with the noble Lord and I will go back to the department and ensure that he is involved in the conversations the department has about celebrating the grands prix going forward.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the F1 generates hundreds of millions of pounds for the British economy and turns over £2 billion a year. It is a fantastic success. Can I ask the Minister to consider two things? First, could she press for the Silverstone Grand Prix in 2025 to be made free to air to maximise the British public’s chance to watch that grand prix live and not have to pay? Secondly, could she consider supporting the Racing Steps Foundation to bring young aspiring boys and girls into the motor industry? It receives no funding whatever at the moment. Would she consider a 75-year anniversary celebration scholarship to bring more boys and girls into the industry and—you never know—perhaps create another world champion?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would be more than happy to meet the Racing Steps Foundation charity to discuss options or arrange for the Minister for Sport to meet them. In terms of celebrating the role of Silverstone, the grand prix and the issue of free-to-air racing, I fell in love with grand prix racing because it was free to air. There are conversations to be had about making sure that significant moments in British sport can be accessed. However, obviously there is currently a commercial agreement in which Channel 4 gets the highlights—which I, like others, watched of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix at the weekend.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Would the Minister agree that, looking at the success of Formula 1, it has been achieved mainly by not having a government regulator? Does that draw lessons for the Government on other sports?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, all Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate that Formula 1 is highly regulated on health and safety and wider issues. We will explore appropriate governance arrangements for every sport as and where appropriate.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister talk to all the major sporting venues? There are many worldwide sporting events that take place in the United Kingdom. I have in mind the likes of Wimbledon, sports at Wembley and the like. Major sporting events face a very specific problem in terms of organisations moving in and out of this country—whether that be on tax or mobility or the like. Therefore, it would be appropriate to bring sporting venues and events together to ensure that there is a co-ordinated government policy.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Minister for Sport has regular conversations with all relevant stadia. With regards to Formula 1, those will start for next year’s celebrations in January. If the noble Lord has specific concerns, he should feel free to raise them with me and I will make sure the department addresses them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, nine years ago I was in Mexico at the same time as the grand prix there, sharing a hotel with the Ferrari back-office team. I got stranded at the hotel because the disability taxi failed to turn up. After 36 hours without sleep, three of the team worked with me to solve the problem and help me rebook my flight. I have a picture in front of their Ferrari. My next car is definitely going to be a Ferrari. Does the Minister agree that we need to recognise the support of the back-office teams, who are often invisible? In this particular circumstance, it was unusual for a grand prix team to help somebody in a wheelchair, and they were brilliant.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for sharing her story and put on record our thanks to Ferrari for making sure that she did not get stranded. I think we can see that our collective teams want to help as many people as possible, and it was great they were able to do so in that instance.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, should we not also be celebrating the extraordinary global success of the often-denigrated Milton Keynes? Milton Keynes is the global engineering and technological hub of Formula 1.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think we celebrate everyone involved with the development of Formula 1. Across “Motorsport Valley”, we have 25,000 highly skilled engineers working to support it, which is why Formula 1 is so effective. We have 45,000 people working in the pipeline for Formula 1 and wider motorsport in the UK. This is to celebrate all parts of the UK and their contribution. As someone who goes past Milton Keynes on the train every week, I think we should always celebrate Milton Keynes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we know that petrolheads find motor racing tremendous, but we also know that motor racing has been connected closely to innovation in the industry. Are there any plans for experimenting with racing with cars that might be powered by electricity or hydrogen in the future?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. One of the roles of Formula 1 has been as a driver for cultural change, whether in health and safety, as it has developed safer cars, or in making things that were seen to be unacceptable acceptable in terms of technology and going to the cutting edge. In 2026 we will see a hybrid car for Formula 1, with a new sustainable fuel source. I look forward to seeing how that develops for the commercial market.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that, when we talk about innovation, we should also support Formula E? It is a fully battery-raced series, which is innovation at the top level. Will the Government do more to promote Formula E and inspire young people to get involved? Before I sit down, I offer my services in celebrating 75 years of Formula 1; I am a massive McLaren fan.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think we are all proving to have our own teams today. Personally, I started with Damon Hill.
Formula E is a significant development. We have seen the wider Formula 1 pipeline through Formula E and the also very important F1 Academy programme to encourage women to come through. There is also Mission 44 to encourage more diversity and engagement from every part of society. How Formula 1 can be a case for developing wider participation and engagement in a sustainable way needs to be celebrated. The Minister for Sport is meeting with the industry in January to talk about how we can frame that through the celebration of 75 years of Formula 1.
Post Office: Capture System
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to overturn the convictions of sub-postmasters or former Post Office employees convicted in relation to the Capture system.
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 pay tribute to the important work that the noble Lord has done in campaigning for justice for the postmasters—and indeed his ongoing work on that issue.
We were concerned to learn about the issues outlined in the Kroll report, which related to the Capture system. However, the report did not comment on whether the convictions were unsafe. As the noble Lord will know, the Government are committed to responding to the report, and that response will be published next week. In the meantime, convictions in relation to the Capture software are being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commissions. The UK Government and the Post Office are assisting them with their requests for information, and I encourage all those who believe they have been wrongly convicted to contact the CCRC.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is now clear from the Kroll report that the Minister referred to that the Post Office’s behaviour in relation to the Capture system was just as bad as its behaviour in relation to Horizon. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board—I declare an interest as a member of it—wrote to the Lord Chancellor in November saying that there was no difference between the Horizon victims and the Capture victims on the question of whether they should have their convictions overturned.
Might the Government consider an alternative approach, which might not offend the understandable concerns of those who do not like the idea of Parliament overturning judicial decisions? Earlier this year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who I see in his place, proposed such an alternative arrangement, which involved the judges in an appropriate way. Perhaps we can take the opportunity of reducing the evidential requirements to take a case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. The proposal for the Horizon cases from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, related to the Lord Chancellor taking a power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, and putting in place a statutory presumption that any convictions are unsafe unless there is evidence to the contrary. As noble Lords will know, this would represent a significant departure from existing appeals processes, and any further exploration of such an approach would need careful consideration, not just for this case but potentially for others. That is not to say we are dismissing it; it would be under review. I emphasise that, unlike Horizon, we do not yet have evidence that the flaws in the Capture system resulted in wrongful convictions. In fact, the Kroll report is clear on this point, stating:
“Kroll does not provide comment on whether any convictions arising from sub-postmasters using Capture could be considered unsafe”.
Part of the problem with the Kroll report is that because it related to the 1990s it had some difficulty in getting the documentation to assess whether that was the case.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask Ministers to be absolutely sure that there is no cover-up, as happened so scandalously with Horizon? Surely the plight of the sub-postmasters under Capture, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, is exactly the same as under Horizon, except that the convicted Capture sub-postmasters were badly treated more than 20 years ago and have suffered ever since without any redress. All that time, the accounting officer for the Post Office was a Civil Service Permanent Secretary and the Government had their own appointee on the Post Office board. Will Ministers ensure that these sub-postmasters get the justice denied to them for so long and are not forced to go to court to do so?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will bear with us, because we are coming back with a response on the Capture system next week, so I am sorry I am not able to answer on the detail of that. On the current ownership and governance arrangements, we are committed to a Green Paper looking at those relationships between the Post Office and the Government. It will be published in the early part of next year and will address issues about the involvement and representation on the board that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, as my name has been mentioned on two occasions already, it is perhaps apt that I should say something. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has done in this field. He was good enough to pay an undeserved tribute to some of the work I did in the background as well. I fear, on this occasion, that in praying in aid the scheme I proposed for the Horizon problem, to deal with a constitutional solipsism, we are not yet there with Capture.
Does the Minister agree that, in our constitutional arrangements, the separation of powers and rule of law suggest that courts should deal with wrongful convictions, and overturn them if they are established as such? Does she also agree that in this instance it is much better to wait for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer some cases to the Court of Appeal, which will then deal with them by looking at all the facts, evidence and arguments and, if there are problems, quash the convictions?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord raises important issues of law. He will know that the Law Commission is already looking at the law relating to criminal appeals and is due to report next year. That review includes consideration of the CCRC’s role and the statutory tests it applies. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations.
To return briefly to the Capture system, the Court of Appeal is yet to overturn any convictions relating to the use of Capture. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is already considering five potential cases and it is right and proper, in these circumstances, that we let the CCRC and the SCCRC finish conducting those reviews.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is appalling that the key information for the Kroll report forensic investigation into Capture, which pre-dates Horizon, was provided only the day before the report was submitted to government; it did not change the report. Kroll has found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that Capture had caused these accounting shortfalls.
Back in May, when we were discussing the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, I asked questions about Capture on three separate occasions. I was told that it was completely different and there was absolutely no connection. It now appears there is a connection. Regardless of the route to justice, will the Government undertake to move as speedily as they can, not just to overturn these cases but to provide redress to these postmasters and staff?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. There is a difference between Horizon and the Capture system. The Capture system was not networked to a central system like Horizon was, which meant the data in Capture could not be accessed or manipulated from elsewhere. However, notwithstanding that, we are looking at whether there have been miscarriages of justice. I am sorry to say this, but perhaps the noble Baroness should wait for the report we will produce next week. I feel frustrated saying this today, but I know noble Lords will understand how the machinery of government works. I hope to come back with clearer news next week.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
More broadly, can the Minister tell us what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that no authority, public or private, can act with unchecked power similar to that exercised by the Post Office during the Horizon case?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this; it is an issue that relates not just to the Post Office and Horizon. We are very aware of that and are looking at whether other actions should be taken on a more general basis. It is at the top of our list of concerns, and I hope we will be able to come back with more information on that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that in the case of Capture, as Horizon, justice delayed is justice denied? Dewi Lewis, the sub-postmaster in Penrhyndeudraeth, is the son of my late agent, Maldwyn Lewis. He had to sell his house to bail out his son, hoping to avoid further prosecution. Is it not necessary to make maximum speed with these cases to avoid such circumstances?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: speed is of the essence. No postmaster who suffered from either of these schemes should have to wait longer than is absolutely necessary. We are doing everything we can to speed up the payments for the Horizon scheme, and we are working very quickly on the Capture scheme to see whether there are major issues we need to take on immediately. We moved quickly to conclude and publish the results of the independent investigation into Capture. As I say, we are committed to publishing a response this month, which will now be next week. We are moving quickly on this. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and none of us wants to see anyone waiting longer than they should to get justice in what are some terrible cases.
Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of avian flu affecting turkeys in Norfolk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, following the detection of avian influenza in England, Defra has stood up its well-established response to control and eradicate disease. This has included humane culling of affected birds and establishing disease control zones to help prevent onward spread. The latest information is that there have been six cases in England—three in Norfolk, with two that affect turkeys. Defra will continue to monitor the situation and will consider a regional avian influenza protection zone if risk warrants this.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply—that sounds like good news for Christmas, because there are no more outbreaks in turkeys at present. As someone who once raised turkeys for my local WI market for Christmas, I can empathise with the free-range turkey producers. Can the Minister say how affected poultry farmers, who have the rest of the winter and of the 2025 avian flu season to survive, are compensated should they need to cull? Have the Government changed any aspects of the compensation scheme since they became the Government? Finally, given that insurance against avian flu is virtually impossible to get now, will the Government consider bringing in their own insurance scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, the compensation scheme that we are looking at is the same as previously, in that poultry owners will be compensated for the value of the birds if they were healthy at the time of the cull. We have no plans to change that. Secondly, I am extremely aware of the complications around insurance. When we had the previous outbreak, I met a number of poultry owners who were having real problems with insurance. We are very concerned about this, and we will work with insurance companies to monitor the situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their swift response to this outbreak. Will the noble Baroness agree with me about the importance of monitoring potential outbreaks from our neighbouring countries in the European Union? Where are we on a potential sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with EU countries, which is so important in this regard?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, it is really important that we work closely with our European neighbours. The incidences of avian flu are currently not what we have seen in previous years, but we must not be complacent. Working with our European neighbours to monitor outbreaks is absolutely critical, because wild birds fly very long distances so this is an international problem. Regarding the SPS agreements, all I can say is that we are making progress and continuing discussions with the EU.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, my former Norfolk constituency contains a large number of poultry farms that invariably set the highest standards of animal health and biosecurity. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a question on insurance. Many farmers obviously find it difficult to get this insurance. The key thing is for the Government to work with the insurance industry to try to find a way forward, so can the Minister elaborate a bit more on her earlier reply on that point?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, insurance is a difficult issue. It becomes difficult in many areas—I am sure noble Lords are aware of the difficulties for businesses during flooding as well. Getting insurance in certain business cases is complex. All I can say is that we are extremely aware of the problems that occurred last time for poultry farmers in getting insurance. The outbreak this time is very low compared with previous years, but we are being proactive and doing our best to prevent further outbreaks. We are working with insurance companies to make sure that we have the best outcomes that we can, should this outbreak get worse.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, with the outbreak of avian influenza, the challenge of bluetongue virus in ruminants and the ongoing battle to reduce bovine TB incidence—to say nothing of the biosecurity threats to, for example, our pig population from African swine fever—is the Minister confident that her department and APHA have the necessary resources to cope?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on her wonderful work with the devolved Administrations, in meeting the various Ministers and organisations in the agricultural field. Whenever she next meets the Minister in Northern Ireland, will she ask him what joint work can be done to address disease in not only poultry flocks but animals such as TB reactors? That is a major problem for our farming industry.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I actually met with the Minister in Northern Ireland only yesterday, and we have very regular meetings. Biosecurity is incredibly important, and it is important that we work right across all our devolved Administrations as well as with our European colleagues. I am more than happy to discuss this—I have discussed it when I have gone over to Northern Ireland. I have met farming communities over there and looked at the biosecurity measures at ports for things such as African swine fever. We are being very proactive about this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
Our Government amended the avian flu compensation scheme to allow compensation to be paid from the outset of planned culling to allow swifter payments. Can the Minister confirm whether such payments have been made in this case, and inform the House how many avian flu-related compensation claims have been accepted in the current year, compared to last year? Can she perhaps also reassure the House that there will be enough turkeys for Christmas?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned, this outbreak is very low compared to previous years, and we have brought in preventive measures to ensure that it does not become a major problem, as we had a few years ago. As I mentioned in responding to the previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, compensation will be paid in the same way as it was previously. I have absolutely no expectation that there will be any problem with turkeys being provided for Christmas, particularly as 85% of the turkeys that will be eaten at Christmas have already been slaughtered and are either fresh or frozen, as it is quite late in the year.
Lord Deben (Con)
This disease can be spread from the smallest of flocks. Is the Minister confident that we now have the registration of all people who are keeping birds? Without that, we are not able to enforce the necessary protections, should this particular event increase. We are bound to have such events in the future as well.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, we are keen to encourage all small poultry keepers to register. The system is now working well—I have actually done it myself, because I am a small poultry keeper—so I absolutely encourage anyone to do it. It is very simple: it probably took me about a minute and a half. It is very straightforward so, if you have not registered, please do.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, although this outbreak is very small, the noble Baroness will remember that, in the previous serious outbreak in the run-up to Christmas, uninfected turkeys were slaughtered early and kept in large chiller facilities until needed for Christmas. Should this outbreak get more serious, are there plans to repeat that process?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, 85% of turkeys that are expected for the Christmas dinner table have already been slaughtered and are available either fresh or frozen, so I do not see that that will be an issue for this year.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I refer to my interests in the register. My noble friend Lord Trees mentioned the bluetongue virus outbreak, which has been somewhat underreported. The restricted zone for that virus outbreak now runs to 26 counties in England, so it is spreading quite quickly. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on farmers who cannot move their animals easily within that restricted zone? What are the Government doing to help them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are very aware of the impacts on farmers and the issues around restricted zones. With the weather changing and us now moving into winter, and with this being a midge-transported disease, cases are coming down. We are now looking at the issue of midges that can overwinter and therefore spread the disease next year, without it having to be blown over from the continent. Whether that means we want to keep the restricted zones in place is something we are currently looking at and considering carefully.
Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That this House takes note of the need to eliminate domestic abuse, and to support victims and survivors.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I felt this was a timely moment to bring this debate to our Chamber. We have just had 16 days of action—which started with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and ran through until Human Rights Day on 10 December—as part of a campaign that seeks to end violence against women. Last month, a documentary by Her Majesty the Queen, “Behind Closed Doors”, aired on television, telling the harrowing experiences of women subjected to domestic abuse, with victims including an MP and a police chief inspector braving speaking to the camera.
There is to be a review on the law of homicide and last week Jess Phillips launched a pilot for the new domestic abuse protection order. We must not forget that Christmas often brings an increase in calls to the police reporting cases of domestic violence. Financial pressure and increased alcohol can lead to outbursts and this in a period with fewer opportunities to report or to escape to safety.
According to the 2021 Act, domestic abuse is where the victim and perpetrator are
“16 or over and are personally connected to each other”
and
“it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct”.
Domestic abuse is defined as an incident or pattern of incidents of any of the following: controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading or violent behaviour, including sexual violence, and economic abuse.
The origins of the present Act can be traced back to the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which aimed to protect battered wives. To me, that does not seem that long ago and all of us, I am sure, can remember watching Punch and Judy on the beach or reading Andy Capp, where domestic violence was seen as humour. Thank goodness, to most of us, that is not the case today.
In the majority of cases, domestic violence is carried out by a partner, an ex-partner or a family member or parent. This heinous, devastating crime can be experienced by anyone, regardless of race, ethnic or religious group, sexuality, class or disability. If you know three women or seven men, statistics suggest that you know one who has experienced some kind of partner abuse or violence.
Last year, there were 2.4 million victims—1.7 million women and 699,000 men—picked up by the data, but we know that it is on the increase, with almost certainly more victims than I have mentioned. Women are more likely to be victims and 95% of those contacting services are women. In a survey, it was found that police received domestic-related calls every 30 seconds.
Women should never feel that it is safer to stay with a man than to leave him but, according to the Femicide Census, 38% of women killed by an ex-partner were killed within the first month of separation and 89% within the first year. A 2023 NHS survey stated how domestic violence escalates in pregnancy, with one in three pregnant women experiencing some kind of domestic abuse. Domestic violence is more common than any other health problem among women during pregnancy.
According to an NSPCC survey, one in three children have lived with an adult perpetrator of domestic abuse. These children are deeply affected, living with bated breath for the next verbal or physical assault, with psychological problems such as anxiety, regressive behaviour, anger and other symptoms of depression, leading well into adulthood.
Age is no barrier. Abuse of older people is underreported according to many people. Older victims are often invisible victims. Older women and men may be affected by what are perceived as low-level individual instances that are part of a long-standing pattern of cumulative abusive behaviour. Many older victims develop coping mechanisms and accept domestic abuse as part of everyday life. They can also experience a feeling of shame because they have stayed with their abuser for many years.
It is also reported that one in five teenagers under the age of 16 have been victims of violence due, in particular, to coercive behaviour in their dating relationships. Many are as young as 13. The moving campaign by the parents of Holly Newton—who was stalked and murdered aged 15 by her ex-boyfriend—brings a devastating reminder of what young victims are experiencing. The age limit of 16 and over is now under scrutiny as the law prevents victims under 16 calling it domestic abuse. In the Young People’s RSE Poll 2024, 74% of girls and 54% of boys surveyed believed that the primary school curriculum should address ideas of how children should behave in their relationships.
The statistics mentioned only scratch the surface and, I hope, set the scene for all other noble Lords to suggest how we can move forward. I feel there is at last so much happening in this space—so much more awareness that victims will feel that they are not alone. The bravery of those who are speaking up about their horrific experiences, and the charities, victims’ advocates, refuges and many more organisations which do so much in this space, set the scene for all of us to join them. Every day we read or see on social media the horrors that happen behind closed doors. Let all of us be aware that, when we know someone who begins to behave differently—does not want to meet up, does not want us to visit them at their home, only speaks briefly or not at all on the phone—we should ask ourselves why.
I have had many moving emails from victims relating how much more is required in support when they bravely start this journey away from the abuse they have experienced, and I look forward to hearing from all noble Lords today about how we can move forward to really help these victims who are desperately in need of support.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory council of the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for bringing this timely debate to our Chamber and thank her for setting out so ably the extent and horror of the domestic abuse that sadly takes place across our country today.
I will make a number of quick points to the Government about how we are dealing with domestic abuse. My first is about the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It is important that we see the full aspects of that Act implemented as quickly as possible. It is very good that the Government have announced pilot schemes for the application of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders. It is important to learn from those pilots, but the sooner the DAPNs and DAPOs are in place across the country the more victims will be protected.
My second point is that, while it is absolutely right that we should consider, think of and have concern for the victims of domestic abuse, there is another aspect which we all too often overlook—the impact it has on our economy. There are many people who are the victims of domestic abuse who on some days will simply not feel able to go into their workplace, but who are unable to talk to their employer about what is happening to them and unable to get the support that they need.
That brings me to my final point—the role that employers can play in dealing with domestic abuse and supporting those who are the victims. I mentioned my connection with the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, set up by the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. It does very good work with employers, but it is important to encourage employers to set an environment in which those of their employees who are victims of domestic abuse are able to come forward and feel able to admit what is happening to them, so they can be signposted to support, but also so they can feel that the workplace is a safe environment for them. It becomes more difficult when the perpetrator is also an employee in the same workplace. But an enlightened employer, with the right advice and the right support, can also ensure that that situation is managed carefully.
I urge the Government to make sure that the Domestic Abuse Act is implemented fully as soon as possible, and I urge all employers to recognise the role that they can play. I ask the Government also to recognise that employers should not be forgotten in looking at how we can deal with domestic abuse.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this important debate and for such an eloquent, powerful and well-researched opening speech. Domestic abuse is a stain on our society; it not only kills women but scars their children and perpetuates a cycle of pain and violence. We have all been heartbroken by the case of Sara Sharif, which we have seen in the past few days. We know this: that violent and controlling men do not just beat women—they often beat their own children.
All of us across the House want to tackle this issue, and I, too, pay tribute to the many brilliant women’s organisations in the sector. I pay tribute particularly to Women’s Aid, which has just marked its 50th anniversary. These organisations do excellent work, giving voice to women who often feel that the world and every public institution has failed them. They listen to these women and, most importantly, they believe them—women like Claire Throssell MBE. Claire had a violent partner. She told the court that her ex-husband was capable of hurting her children. He told her that he would, to punish her, and in 2014, during an unsupervised contact visit, he killed her sons, Paul and Jack. In her own words:
“It took just 15 minutes for my life to end and my existence to begin”.
That did not need to happen, and so many of the relentless tragedies that we shed a tear over do not need to happen if we listen to victims and we listen to women like Claire.
I hope that this new Government will listen to the victims. They have got off to a good start, and there are many good champions within the Government, particularly the honourable Jess Phillips, MP. But we need a system that is designed for victims, particularly women and children. At the moment, it feels like the whole system—from the family courts to the police, the criminal justice system and the Child Maintenance Service—exists to grind women down and exhaust them with all the bureaucracy and expense, and to punish them again and again.
Many people think that it is all over for a woman when the immediate violence stops and she leaves her partner, but that can often be just the beginning of a nightmare journey, trying to survive economic abuse and coercive control, with the ex-partner using the family court system against her and accusing her of all sorts. The emotional, psychological and financial abuse can carry on long after those initial bruises fade. We must listen to women and work with organisations such as Women’s Aid and Surviving Economic Abuse.
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister: will he consider recognising domestic abuse as the national emergency that it is?
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. The Prime Minster has pledged to halve violence against women and girls within 10 years. At the moment, police receive one call every minute about domestic abuse. If the Government achieve their aim of cutting this by half within 10 years, that means the police will receive one call every two minutes about domestic violence. This is not going to give comfort to the 2 million women who, every year, are victims of male violence, because this scourge on our society accounts for around one-fifth of all murders, as well as a rising number of suspected victim suicides.
Yet, the scale of this problem is still not widely understood, and exposure to extreme porn and misogyny is pushing violence against women to epidemic proportions. Criminal justice is not the whole answer; our justice system must step up and do much better for victims.
Domestic abuse happens in relationships and is often complex, yet too many police first responders are still failing to identify what offences have occurred and to respond appropriately. Too many still minimise the risk and harm experienced, failing to understand why a woman might have little choice but to stay with her abuser.
We welcome the Government’s new protection orders, but if the police do not get that first call right, opportunities to impose them will continue to be missed. Currently, orders are rarely used and poorly enforced. This must change, with specialists embedded with front-line officers to build victims’ trust and identify what type of order, if any, is appropriate.
Then, there is the absolute scandal of court backlogs. Domestic abuse hearings are currently being listed more than two years ahead, but most victims do not remain in the process for two months, let alone two years. Almost half withdraw within five days of reporting an incident, and the majority drop out before a charge is even filed. Recognising this, one police force recently piloted a programme to get all domestic abuse cases before court within two weeks, many within 72 hours. Women were turning up with black eyes, and the early guilty plea rate was remarkable. But without enough court space, sadly, the pilot was cut short.
It is also critical that sentencing levels for domestic abuse-related incidents do not dip in the face of prison capacity concerns. Unfortunately, a number of domestic abusers have been freed under the Government’s early release scheme, largely because England and Wales do not have a specific offence of domestic abuse. Instead, these cases are prosecuted under general offences such as actual bodily harm or common assault. So the Liberal Democrats this week have tabled a Bill which would put into law a specific set of domestic abuse-aggravated offences, and I hope the Government will support it.
Having a 10-year plan is not the answer. We need a repeat of the swift justice that we saw following the summer riots. The rioters were stopped in their tracks because they knew that there was a will to identify, charge and prosecute them immediately. If it could be done then, it can be done now.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this debate. I declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK. I shall focus on four points: funding, domestic homicide rates among minority ethnic women, spiritual abuse, and transnational abandonment.
No funding was pledged to tackle domestic abuse in the last Budget, which was surprising given Labour’s manifesto commitment to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%. The current funding crisis and the rise in employer national insurance will result in many women’s organisations scaling back their services, taking away vital support for domestic abuse victims. Can the Minister provide assurance that the next Budget will announce funding to tackle domestic abuse?
Domestic homicide rates for minority ethnic women are around 22% higher. This issue can be addressed only if we know why it is happening. Will the Government agree to carry out a public consultation exercise to find out what the contributing factors are to the higher rates? This will help to save lives.
Spiritual abuse is not legally defined and is not limited to abuse by faith leaders. It is also a form of domestic abuse, where families and partners may misuse religion to control and manipulate women and children in particular. A legal definition could help to better recognise this form of abuse and hold perpetrators to account. Will the Government consider having a legal definition of spiritual abuse? Will the Minister write to me about the number of spiritual abuse cases recorded by the police in the last five years?
Transnational abandonment is another form of domestic abuse. This is when—usually—a husband takes his wife abroad on the pretence of a holiday and leaves her there, sometimes with children. The wife is usually on a spousal visa waiting for indefinite leave to remain. Helplines such as the one that I run are then left to apply for documents and pay for flights to get the women and children back into the UK. In the first six months of 2024, there were 28 transnational abandonment cases.
Being abandoned in this way is traumatising. It is time to make this a specific criminal offence. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for treating women as though they are property that can be discarded in this way. Recently in Australia, a man who had deceived his wife into leaving the country left her in Sudan. He was then convicted of exit trafficking and sentenced to more than four years in prison. It is time for perpetrators of this type of domestic abuse to also be convicted in the UK. Will the Government consider a law change here?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, may I make a brief intervention to suggest that it is not always men abusing women? I am very familiar with women who control the behaviour and lives of their spouses, over many years, with threats that often involve children.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, homes and relationships should be places where people feel safe and loved but, with Northumbria Police receiving about 115 calls about domestic abuse per day, this is sadly not the case for many. The north-east has particularly high rates of domestic violence, at 19 per 1,000 population according to Health Equity North, while the average for the whole of England is 13.
Steps are being taken to reduce this number, with Northumbria Police having placed domestic abuse specialists in their emergency call rooms since 2022. The project has received positive feedback, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce this more widely through Raneem’s law.
At the end of May, I met the family of Holly Newton, a 15 year-old girl who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in Hexham, Northumberland, which is in my diocese. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned Holly in her opening speech. The law states that this case was not one of domestic abuse, as both the victim and the perpetrator were under the age of 16, and it was classified as knife crime. This places an emphasis on the weapon rather than the build-up to the crime, which showed clear signs of domestic abuse.
In light of the recent Youth Endowment Fund survey of teenagers aged 13 to 17, which found that 49% had experienced some form of violent or controlling behaviour in their relationships in the past year, what consideration have the Government given to lowering the age limit to include those under 16 in the definition of domestic abuse?
I commend the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, but I fear that it is not possible without more focus on prevention. Holly’s family have raised the need to improve relationship education. The YEF survey also found that only 40% of respondents had lessons on building healthy, respectful romantic relationships, and even fewer teens received practical advice on recognising or addressing unhealthy relationships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that teenagers receive high-quality education on healthy relationships and spotting signs of violence and coercion?
Bold ambitions require bold actions. I hope that this Government have the courage to take the necessary actions, centring the voices of victims and survivors.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this debate, and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead for her long-term leadership on this issue. I also thank Her Majesty the Queen for the compassion that she has shown on this issue, including by becoming patron of SafeLives, the charity that I founded almost 20 years ago.
I want to share with the House three things that I learned during my time at SafeLives. First, one of the principles to which we worked was: what would you want for your best friend if she was experiencing domestic abuse? We decided on a dedicated specialist who supported her, whatever the issues, be they criminal justice, housing or her children, and for that person to be the linchpin in co-ordinating other agencies to meet her needs.
Secondly, we too had the ambition of halving high-risk domestic abuse, so I share the Government’s ambition here, and you cannot do it if you do not work with perpetrators. We worked with two other charities and founded the Drive Partnership, which worked with the most high-risk perpetrators of abuse. One of the first young men we worked with had already had 10 partners by the age of 24 and had multiple children by those earlier relationships. Without working with him we can make his current partner safe, but we must make his future partners safe by changing his behaviour.
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, we are all thinking today of the tragedy of Sara Sharif. We must keep children central. Even the press coverage of her death talked about her parents having a volatile relationship. The child was killed, and we can imagine what happened before that. We did a big research study which found that 60% of the children that we looked at had lived with domestic abuse since they were in the womb, with everything that meant for their futures.
I will close with two other thoughts. First, please let us not forget health in all this. We piloted putting domestic abuse specialists in A&E and safeguarding settings. Women who would never talk to the police were able to disclose what was happening to them. Finally, as others have said, we learned more by listening to survivors and families who had lost their loved ones than by doing anything else.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for bringing this debate before us today. I agree with her that the need to eliminate domestic abuse is a worthy and crucial ambition, as is supporting victims and survivors.
Violence against women and girls is not inevitable but perhaps should be regarded as a national emergency. According to the Office for National Statistics in its latest bulletin, Domestic Abuse in England and Wales Overview: November 2024, an estimated 2.3 million people aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2024.
Two of the purposes of the Istanbul convention—or, to give it its full title, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence—are to
“protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”,
and to
“contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promote substantive equality between women and men, including by empowering women”.
The previous Government ratified the convention in 2022, and we were all very happy when that happened, but there were reservations on Articles 44 and 59. This Government are reviewing Article 59, and I look forward to the Minister reporting on that review soon, as it will be of great help to migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. This convention is fully in line with what we are debating today.
I am pleased that this Government have set out an unprecedented ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and they have announced new measures to tackle spiking, stalking and other crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls. They have already taken significant steps to transform the policing response to these awful crimes.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned older people. Older people who are victims of domestic abuse are often overlooked and not taken seriously. Hourglass, the charity that campaigns for better protection of older people, of which I am a patron, is calling on the Government to begin a consultation on developing a strategy to tackle the abuse and neglect of older people. To make sure that we see the full picture of the abuse of older people, police forces should implement a consistent and accessible data collection system in each police force, categorising crime according to age. Will the Minister agree to look at this, as it is so often overlooked?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence is clearly ambitious. It is perhaps less ambitious than the elimination of domestic violence, referred to in the Motion before us.
Statistics do not suggest either aim to be possible. The World Health Organization reports domestic violence to be the largest cause of morbidity in women aged 19 to 44—more than wars, cancer or motor accidents. Domestic abuse used to be seen as essentially a private problem, except in extreme cases. Changed perceptions and the Human Rights Act have given the state responsibilities for positive, preventive and protective action, now reinforced by the Istanbul convention, signed in 2012 and eventually ratified in 2022. That is a convention based on realities rather than on abstract rights.
Domestic abuse persists and will continue to do so, but having worked in family law for a long time I want to emphasise some significant improvements: first, the changes in terminology that have already been referred to. The 2021 Act provides a wide and useful definition of domestic abuse, including psychological, emotional and economic abuse, and it is not confined to what happens in a home, if there is one. But the word “domestic” remains fundamental, emphasising the need to protect homes as places of security and safety, and not as places of dangerous misery.
The recognition of controlling or coercive behaviour has served to focus the attention of the courts and professionals on patterns of behaviour rather than individual incidents. There is now a much better understanding of the impact on victims, in terms of social and familial isolation and loss of self-esteem, particularly in households and relationships in which violence and abuse have become normalised.
However, many perpetrators of abuse, lacking empathy and insight, all too easily move on to other harmful relationships. The family courts see this time and again. Sadly, Sarah’s law and Clare’s law are seldom used by those who most need them.
There are positive indications, however. The police have become more responsive and better at recognising domestic abuse. Refuges remain vital in giving at least temporary safety and enabling women to move on. IDVAs are an invaluable addition to the practical support available; funding for them should be assured. Cafcass officers are now subject to a new Cafcass domestic abuse practice policy, based on hearing victims clearly and taking concerns seriously.
I do not wish to take any more time defending the role of the family courts, but we have to resolve conflicting claims of ulterior motives. There is now a very valuable Family Justice Council document giving welcome and important guidance, giving greater weight to domestic abuse allegations and to suggestions of potential alienation.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I take a pretty broad view of the phrase “domestic abuse”, for it includes not just men and women battering each other, using emotional abuse or battering children, but sometimes partners jointly abusing the elderly, the frail and confused men and women of some age. I have been interested in this for some while, and I can do no better than unashamedly borrow a phrase from a campaigning outfit called Hourglass: often, people of age are left out of the conversation on domestic abuse.
I hope that the Minister addresses it in his reply. If he cannot find time, understandably, to mention it in his wind-up speech, he may choose to write to us and place a letter in the Library of the House on what exactly the Government propose to do. A considerable number of elderly people have a pretty horrible time domestically.
How to reduce domestic violence is one of the great social challenges of the day; it is going to take time to resolve. The mention of the word “time” causes me to pause over just one word in the title of this excellent debate put forward by my noble friend, on which I congratulate her—“eliminate”. I wish that we could eliminate it, but it is never going to be an easy challenge when people have been violent with each other over generations.
Lastly, we need to take a broad view of how we deal with domestic violence. Of course, legislation, new orders and the panoply of political undertakings are very important, but education as a background is terribly important too. It is nothing like as important as stopping people being beaten up or abused, but I believe that social change is brought about by getting messages across, whether through the use of media or in schools. Schools cannot do everything, but it is very good for schools to address their attention right through to what I have learned to call the “manosphere” and messages being put across online through new mediums, which we have to use in subtle, non-specific and non-harassing ways. I am convinced that educational messages have a limited but very important part to play in the long term.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for securing this debate and pay tribute to her work in this House. This is such a fundamental, important area for us to address.
I commend the Government on their ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It demonstrates a commitment to tackling this scourge, and we must do all we can to take a stand against gender-based violence. The voices of men and boys are fundamental in this.
I too welcome the recent launch of the pilots of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders, and hope they will prove effective in providing greater protection for victims and survivors. I note that implementation is the key issue here. Without proper awareness, monitoring and response to breaches of these orders, they will inevitably have just a limited impact.
Of course, as well as enforcement, there is an urgent need for prevention. Upstream prevention is much better than helping victims and survivors down stream. Although men can be victims, as we have noted, it is mainly women who suffer from this. So how can we tackle the misogynistic and sexist views that can lead to these horrific crimes? In particular, I wonder whether the Minister can be tempted to reflect a little on what can be done in our schools and education systems, as others have raised, as we address this issue.
I wonder if more can be done by His Majesty’s Government to work in co-operation with the voluntary sector. A couple of weeks ago, I was delighted to be invited to speak at an open meeting organised by the St Albans branch of the Soroptimists—“Orange the World” was its title. People from all around the community came together to address this and to raise its profile in local media. I also note the work undertaken by the Mothers’ Union. Its RISE UP campaign involves activism against domestic abuse and gender-based violence and goes on throughout the year, not just during the 16 Days of Activism campaign.
Could the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to publish a more detailed strategy of how they intend to reach their target of halving violence against women and girls in a decade and how they intend to measure that target?
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to support my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen today. I thank her for her powerful opening speech and for giving us the chance to debate this most important and deeply concerning topic. My noble friend mentioned Her Majesty the Queen’s documentary on domestic violence, “Behind Closed Doors”, which was moving and compassionate but often uncomfortable and chilling viewing. It should make us all look for the best and most immediate ways to break this evil cycle.
In Bolton, we are blessed with a wonderful refuge, Fortalice, which opened its doors 47 years ago to women and children to keep them safe from domestic abuse and violence. Over the years, it has grown to offer not just a refuge but 22 services within the community, including a children and young people’s hub. It delivers programmes and early intervention aimed at breaking the cycle of abuse and helping children work through the trauma they have suffered.
Started by a group of friends, Fortalice is now led by two equally inspiring and determined women: the CEO, Gill Smallwood, and chair, Diane Hawkins, who is the Lord-Lieutenant of Greater Manchester. Under their leadership, and supported by a team of dedicated staff, Fortalice has gone from strength to strength. Gill has always believed that we need to look after victims at a local level. When she first arrived at Fortalice, 13 years ago, she saw that there was a huge gap in some working partnerships. She duly forged a partnership with the police, which meant victims were reached as early as possible because help was in the right place, at the right time. Through this essential early intervention programme, the police came to value its work, which was also educational, especially when dealing with an area where violence may not be immediately obvious and is often not taken as seriously as it should be.
Attempts to scale this up to a regional level lost that essential local element; when you lose that, victims too get lost. Local commissioning reduces trauma for the whole family, especially where children are involved, because local services understand the needs of their communities and can react in a timely way, especially with rising demand and complex needs.
Last year, the office of the Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester asked Fortalice to run a local pilot partnership with the police, similar to the original programme. Built on highly trained volunteers drawn from all walks of life, including former police officers, teachers, counsellors, students and survivors of domestic violence, they go out on appointments with the police, meaning that once again the right people are in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They provide a lifeline of protection and support, and a rebuilding of self-esteem and trust, which domestic abuse in all its forms so cruelly erodes. We are rightly proud of all they do. I pay tribute to all who work in this distressing but vital area.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, this is a story about how long it takes for good ideas to get on to the statute book before being finally implemented. In February 2010, Kit Malthouse, London’s then deputy mayor for policing, attended a conference and heard about the South Dakota 24/7 sobriety project, the aim of which is to reduce the recidivism of offenders who drive under the influence of alcohol or commit domestic violence when drunk. Between 25% and 50% of domestic violence incidents are linked to alcohol consumption. The project mandates offenders to a period of enforced alcohol abstinence. In the US, this is monitored by daily breathalyser tests paid for by the offenders. If they do not turn up or if they test positive, they are subject to flash incarceration for a day or two. Convinced that this model could help reduce violence in the night-time economy and domestic violence, Malthouse campaigned to conduct the first trial of 24/7 sobriety in Europe.
The alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement, or AAMR, was introduced in the LASPO Act 2012. I am proud to have played my part in persuading the then Justice Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, to accept amendments which permit courts in England and Wales to impose a requirement for an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested to ensure compliance. Various AAMR pilots were conducted using sobriety bracelets, with a compliance rate of 94%.
In 2020, 10 years after Kit Malthouse began campaigning, an SI enabled a rollout of the AAMR, followed in 2022 by alcohol monitoring on licence. Here is how it works. The tag takes a sample of the wearer’s sweat every 30 minutes and provides a continuous record of whether the offender has been drinking. If the tag detects alcohol or is tampered with, an alert is sent to the Probation Service. If an offender breaks their alcohol ban, they can face a return to court or a prison sentence. Recent data shows a rapid rise in the use of alcohol monitoring post-release, but it is still very low. It would appear that prison governors are using it most. Does the Minister know why the Parole Board is not using this option at the same rate? Would the Minister agree that, if people are to be released early from prison, monitoring via tags might increase the number of candidates for early release?
I understand that a new agreement has been reached to supply more tags, but now that the effectiveness of the intervention has been proven, what is needed is more competition for better, cheaper devices. US data shows that keeping men sober in the community on these schemes helps reduce violence in the home. However, I believe this to be underresearched here. Will the Home Office agree to fund such research and explore how we can use this technology to keep even more women safe from abuse? It is a cheap option, enables safer early release, keeps men out of prison, and reduces much alcohol-fuelled abuse and probably death. Compulsory sobriety has the potential to be a game-changer. Will the Minister commit to looking into it further and giving it a very good push?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for initiating this vital debate. Domestic abuse devastates lives, families and communities. Despite increased awareness and legislative progress, the scale of the issue remains alarming. According to the Office for National Statistics, 2.4 million adults aged 16 to 74 in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2022. Domestic abuse not only inflicts a heavy emotional toll but imposes significant financial costs. The Home Office estimates the total cost to be £78 billion a year, which includes healthcare, lost economic output, and housing and support services. The human cost—the loss of safety, dignity and sometimes life itself—is incalculable.
While the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 marked significant progress, critical gaps in appropriate provision persist. Refuges—a lifeline for survivors—remain underfunded and oversubscribed. In 2022, Women’s Aid reported that as many as one in five women referred to refuges were turned away due to lack of space. This shortfall is even more acute for ethnic-minority survivors, who face additional barriers, including language challenges and cultural stigmas.
Another pressing issue is the rise of technology-facilitated abuse. Online harassment, the misuse of surveillance tools and digital manipulation have become common tactics for abusers. Research shows that 71% of domestic abuse victims have experienced some form of online abuse, and we are struggling to address this evolving threat.
It is also vital to think of children in these situations. Exposure to domestic abuse affects their emotional and psychological well-being and can result in long-term harm. Adequate funding for services supporting child survivors in child and family social care is crucial to breaking this cycle.
In light of these challenges, I ask the Government to address two questions of particular concern. First, what plans do they have to ensure that there is sustained and adequate funding for specialist domestic abuse services? Secondly, how do they intend to address the rise of technology-facilitated abuse, ensuring both victim protection and accountability for perpetrators in the digital age?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step forward but, as my noble friend Lady May said, it must be fully implemented as soon as possible and more must be done to eliminate all forms of domestic abuse.
Considering sexual and reproductive coercion first, pregnancy is widely recognised as one of the most dangerous times for women with abusive partners. Around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during their pregnancy. In abusive relationships, perpetrators often seek to control every aspect of their partner’s life, including their reproductive choices. We have seen abusers coercing their partners into pregnancy by destroying birth control methods and forcing sexual activity without consent.
Women can be forced into carrying a pregnancy to term against their will, through threats, physical violence or emotional manipulation, with forced or coerced pregnancy being more common than forced or coerced abortion. That can be further impacted by mental health issues, isolation, financial control and fear of the retaliation that they can experience. In his response, I hope that the Minister can outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that reproductive healthcare services are adequately equipped to recognise and support individuals experiencing domestic abuse.
Turning to honour-based abuse, campaign groups are calling for a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, including Karma Nirvana through its Push4Change campaign, in memory of Fawziyah Javed and the countless other women who have been killed through honour-based abuse. Introducing a statutory definition would provide much-needed clarity for victims, professionals and legal systems. It would help ensure that the abuse is properly recognised and responded to, and that this form of abuse is recognised for what it is: a form of gendered violence that needs to be eradicated. Can the Minister say whether the Government will support a statutory definition?
We are tragically seeing an increasing rate at which women are dying as a consequence of domestic abuse. Domestic homicide reviews should play a crucial role in understanding the circumstances surrounding domestic homicides and preventing future deaths. Organisations have raised concerns about the number of repeated recommendations emerging from DHRs, which show little systemic change. There are concerns about the lack of accountability for recommendations, the inconsistent quality of reviews across different regions and the insufficient focus on the victim’s experience. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that DHRs lead to meaningful, consistent improvements in response to domestic abuse? The process of learning lessons from past tragedies must be more effective and impactful.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and to Her Majesty the Queen; I saw the documentary and thought her unforced, natural empathy had huge power.
I applaud the Government for their commitment and focus to reduce violence against women and girls, and I commend them particularly for the appointments of Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones. As a head-hunter for 31 years, I could never understand why previous Conservative Governments did not immediately put the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, into a position to deal with domestic abuse, on the basis that she was far better qualified than anybody else in that Administration. However, the Conservative Government did many things that I did not fully understand.
I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, and her team for all they do. What a legacy this Government have inherited. Nicole Jacobs’s six priorities for the Government encompass: domestic abuse service provision and funding; the policing and criminal justice system; children and young people, and the trauma that domestic abuse can create; family courts; migrant survivors; and domestic homicide and suicide.
Turning briefly to domestic abuse services and funding, her submission to the Autumn Budget and spending review has some significant requests in it, including £303.8 million for community-based DA support, of which £187.8 million should be ring-fenced to ensure that it delivers what is planned.
I am particularly concerned about how we tackle the policing and criminal justice challenges, with only 6% of domestic abuse crimes reported to police resulting in a charge and even fewer resulting in a conviction. Multiagency and cross-geography co-ordination and co-operation are simply not working. With 43 police forces and police and crime commissioners, it is “Let a thousand flowers bloom” and priorities are all over the place. The police force data quality is inconsistent and our ability to measure the effectiveness of measures to reduce domestic abuse is severely handicapped by systemic shortcomings—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale.
The Minister may remember the interchanges we had last week about the new initiatives on stalking and independent stalking advocates. Can he commit to ensuring that this strategy is truly cross-governmental? It needs to bring in health, education, welfare, communities and local government. Can he use his best efforts to ensure that we have far more effective and focused metrics to measure success and, equally helpfully, to measure failure?
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is customary to thank the noble Baroness who has secured a debate for having done so, but in this case I—and, I believe, the whole of your Lordships’ House—genuinely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for having secured the debate today.
Surely the problem that we are facing here is not that Governments, for the last two decades, have ignored domestic abuse, and it is not that the police, the courts or Cafcass have ignored it; it is that all the efforts that have been made have not improved the situation, because what we really need is a change in attitude in society. As the noble Baroness, Lady May, rightly said earlier—I commend her for all the work that she did on this subject, particularly when she was Home Secretary—getting employers involved is terribly important.
We are all awfully polite in Britain. We say, “Oh, there might be something wrong, but it’s none of my business”. That is the change of attitude that we need. We need to have a change of society’s attitude so that we say, “I recognise that this person”—usually a woman, but sometimes a man—“is in some kind of difficulty”. So rather than saying, “It’s none of my business”, let us all see what we can do to improve matters.
We have come a long way in getting the police to recognise how important this hidden crime is, but it is still terribly difficult, especially in cases of coercive control, which is a very hidden crime. Where there is violent behaviour, there is often evidence—bruises, illness and other obvious problems—but, with coercive control, none of those is present: and certainly not if everyone turns their back and says, “It is none of my business”. Because it is all of our business and I only wish that the media would report this debate, and all the excellent points that have been made in it, in the way they take up columns in the newspapers and time on news bulletins talking about the trivia of celebrities and their relationships. Let us look at the relationships of real people throughout this country who need the help of the whole of society.
I ask the Minister: will the Government consider the definition of domestic abuse, which includes the age limit of 16? We have all been shocked by what happened to Sara Sharif. Because she was under 16, it does not mean that it was not domestic abuse.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm for this debate. It saddens me, though, that we only have three minutes to talk about it. If it was to do with EU law, we would have three days. I think that shows you. Are we really serious about tackling domestic abuse? I am going to keep mine short. I have lots of speechwriting from my team, but I think this should be a debate about the victims and the survivors.
I have met many, both in my role as Victims’ Commissioner and outside the role, and the one thing that everybody has said to me is that they do not want to go to court. They do not want to go through these processes that we talk about here today. They want somebody to listen to them. They want them to understand what they are going through. They want them to help them to get out of a horrible, chronic relationship. And they want to protect their children. We have wonderful organisations that work tirelessly to help these victims. They are bursting at the seams because, when they do go to court, we have court backlogs, as we are noting, and it could be years before they get anywhere.
The one thing that we cannot see is coercive controlling. Even though we send perpetrators to prison, that coercive controlling still goes on while they are in prison. We need to tackle that with better training and understanding and looking at it like a chronic, invisible illness—which, as I stand here today, I have, but you would not think so because I do not have a broken arm or leg. We need, as a society, to look at people, and the default button should not be, “Well, they go back”. They go back because they need to put a roof over their head for their children. They go back because they have no control of their finances. They go back because they are worn down by the very person who says they love them. And they go back because they know the consequences of what will happen.
In this House and in the other place, we talk about legislation. This is for the professionals and this is where we can safeguard—and I hope that agencies will get this into perspective. But, more importantly, we are missing a trick. This is not about legislation; this is about understanding a societal problem. It is understanding the language that we talk about and it is understanding that, when a victim goes to report domestic abuse or any crime, this is not the first time that they are suffering at the hands of somebody who will absolutely go on to brutally murder them.
I ask the Minister not to keep using the two words “lessons learned”. It is an insult to the victim and to the family and, more importantly, as we have just seen in the young girl who has brutally lost her life, there is going to be yet another inquiry—another one that sits on the shelf—when in fact there needs to be accountability, because we have enough legislation that should have protected that child. As a whole, we need to do better, quicker, to protect other young lives.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on securing this important debate and all the other speakers who have so movingly talked about the scourge of domestic abuse and why it must be eliminated. She was right to say that it can affect anyone, but much of it remains invisible. And the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say that there is still much to be done. It was good to hear from our own Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who talked about the experience of women and girls who are at the forefront of our minds today as we have this debate. I thank the many organisations who have sent us briefings and all the amazing work that they do with women struggling to flee from domestic abuse.
One in four women experiences domestic abuse. Women’s Aid is right to describe this as an epidemic. Women also experience higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of DA. At least one woman a week is killed by a current or former partner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, this is a public emergency, yet four in five British people do not believe that the scale of domestic abuse is greater than car accidents or house fires. That is to do with the way that we as society, and our press and media, handle it. So, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to help society to listen and understand that DA is just not acceptable, and to teach people, all of us, to help intervene if we have concerns? On a practical level, can the Minister guarantee that the police and crime commissioners’ budget for victim support will be protected?
It was good that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, outlined some of the positive changes that we have seen in the family court system and the effect on children. The support is vital for victims, as my noble friend Lady Doocey outlined. Too many are persuaded or bullied into withdrawing their criminal cases. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has outlined three-planet model of types of victims. There is the domestic violence planet, where domestic abuse is considered a crime. There is the child protection planet, where victims and survivors are expected to remove themselves and the children from the perpetrator. And then there is the child contact planet, where there are lots of negotiations between all three. She says that most of the rest of the systems in society do not understand how all of those conflict to make life for victims very difficult.
The excellent Ministry of Justice report some years ago on assessing the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases, the Harm Panel report, has really started to make some changes, and it is good that that has finally been recognised. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Hazarika, also said, Sara Sharif’s death was shocking, not just for the violence that was inflicted on her but once again for the continued failures of all those in important roles to keep our children safe. “Lessons learned” is no longer good enough; we really need to make sure that things change. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I want to pay great credit to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has really begun to change the tone of the debate that we have.
Other speakers have spoken about the effect on young people aged 16 and under. We definitely need a law change. The law ignores the fact that Holly Newton and other teens do have relationships. The Children’s Commissioner noted that only 1% of under-18s access advocacy services because they are not targeted at that age group. It is not the young people’s fault; they are just not seeing it. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, outlined the shocking effect on older people of abuse, and I absolutely agree with him as well. When you add dementia into it, it becomes a very difficult issue to manage. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke movingly about the special problems of migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse, and she is right. We have to make sure that services for the particularly vulnerable in our society who are also victims of domestic abuse are supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, talked about the impact on the economy, but there are other financial impacts too. The Price of Safety report found that it could cost a woman up to £50,000 to leave her abuser. That is just the direct cost of fleeing and rebuilding a new life. Even women who have state support and benefits can find themselves facing a deficit of up to £10,000 and nearly 1 million women in the UK cannot escape dangerous partners because of economic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say it is even less visible than DA. And the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, rightly outlined spiritual abuse, which is a particularly unpalatable form of coercive control. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, talked about honour-based abuse. That is such an appalling misnomer that almost gives credibility to the perpetrators. We need to find another way of discussing it.
The elimination of domestic abuse needs a whole-system response. As the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, outlined, health and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. Others have talked about pregnancy, but there are other health issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, spoke about the sobriety tag scheme started by Kit Malthouse and her success in getting this into legislation. There is another reason why it is important. LSE research shows that domestic abuse rises after football matches when people have more opportunity to drink alcohol. Perhaps for repeat offenders in that area there might be short-term tag wearing that would help.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about the important role of civic society. He specifically mentioned the Mothers’ Union, but there are many other groups as well. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes. We need to make it much more visible, so that everyone recognises that there is strong and good work continuing. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about the importance of initiatives and pilots, and oh my goodness, she is right. How can these initiatives be scaled up and turned into something that will work and be financially supported at the right level across the country?
Above all, we absolutely must have a complete change in society. Will the Government ensure that there are changes and perhaps even a bigger campaign to make us in society understand that?
I have one last question for the Minister. Hardly any of the Victims and Prisoners Act has been commenced. Can he tell us when every part that relates to victims will be fully commenced, including the revised victims’ code?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in addressing this extremely important topic I sincerely thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen for securing this debate, and thank all noble Lords who have made enormously important contributions.
Let me be clear: domestic abuse is a scourge on our society, and we must take all the steps we can to eliminate it. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that victims and survivors of these horrific crimes deserve the strongest assurances that His Majesty’s Government can give that they are doing all that they can to eliminate domestic abuse.
My noble friend referred to Her Majesty the Queen’s documentary “Behind Closed Doors”, which tells the harrowing stories of women subjected to domestic abuse, with many victims bravely speaking out and Her Majesty the Queen doing an impressive service to bring this to the country’s attention. I do not think any of us would fail to be touched by the stories of the victims.
As the Government over the last 14 years, the Conservatives took a number of steps to seek to eliminate domestic abuse and, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, to reduce violence against women and girls more broadly. However, as always, it is important to be honest: there is certainly more that we could have done when in power to address this issue. We welcome the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls introducing the new pilot domestic abuse protection order. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned, we should not forget violence towards senior citizens, and in many cases it is hidden.
Last year, there were 2.4 million reported victims of domestic abuse, which is a tragic statistic. The numbers seem to be on the rise, and it is certainly the case that my party looks on these statistics with great sadness and anger, as I am sure do all noble Lords.
We tried to tackle the problem of domestic abuse in our 14 years in power but it is not easy. First, we elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, ensuring that victims can always access professional support. We committed a total of over £230 million to our Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, which complemented our £300 million investment in our 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of our goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.
Secondly, we toughened sentences for rapists and stalkers, making sure that they feel the full force of the law. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, with the average sentence length for adult rape now nine years and eight months, up from six and a half years in 2010. This increase of 46% keeps those who devastate communities behind bars for longer.
Thirdly, we launched the end-to-end rape review, delivering victim-centred system change for victims of rape in the long term. We met ambitious targets set out in the review ahead of schedule to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of the last Parliament, and to return volumes of cases being referred to the police to at least 2016 levels, ensuring that justice is done for the most horrific crimes.
Fourthly, we created new offences of coercive control, strengthening protections for victims. We introduced the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour to recognise behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence but which amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, helping bring perpetrators to justice.
Finally, I should mention that I well remember my own experience as a police officer in the 1980s and the 1990s, when it was quite difficult at times to bring assailants to trial at Crown Court, as in many cases the victim was unwilling to proceed with the matter either due to threats or other reasons and was unprepared to give evidence. It is a real challenge—a great challenge to the police and to the criminal justice system.
One of the things that we did get right, though, was that we introduced measures to make it easier for victims to give evidence in court, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in person. Rape victims are now able to pre-record their evidence, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in court. I suggest that this is an enormous step forward, and I am sure the House agrees. All these measures are aimed at supporting victims and survivors of violence against women and girls, and clamping down hard on those who commit these heinous crimes.
I am sure that, on this occasion, the Minister will welcome the work done by the previous Government on this, as it is a matter above party politics. Can he perhaps confirm, first, whether the Government will continue to work with our Benches on key issues to prevent violence against women and girls? Secondly, as the previous Government had committed £230 million to the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, can the Minister perhaps confirm whether this Government will honour that commitment?
As we come up to the Christmas period—the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, is absolutely right—we must bear in mind that Christmas is not a happy time for everybody in our country. It is a fact that it is a period when cases of domestic abuse rise. I hope the Minister takes these questions in good nature, and I wish to offer my support to help him and his ministerial team so that we can present a very unified voice on this issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on bringing this debate before the House. As has been seen from the contributions today, there is significant interest and a number of very strong points have been put which the Government will consider. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we welcome the work done by previous Governments and welcome any support that he, and indeed all Members of this House, can give to the Government to tackle this issue in the longer term.
The important point was made that this takes place at the end of a 16-day period when we have had a very high focus on domestic violence prior to Christmas. It is also important that this House recognises both the work and endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen and the documentary that she has made, and senses the wish of this House to raise the issue and to tackle it with a societal approach. That is a very significant contribution which I very much welcome.
The contributions that we have had all raised a number of different issues. I will try to resolve all those and respond to them in due course; if I cannot, I will write to noble Members about those issues in the meantime.
I want to thank my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Minister Jess Phillips and the Minister Alex Davies-Jones for their commitment in developing the plans that I will be outlining now on behalf of the Government, because they are the drivers behind these measures and I want them to be recognised.
In our manifesto, the Government gave a number of key commitments which we will be judged by but which I hope will have the endorsement of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the scale of the task, and the metrics of measuring it are extremely important. However, the measures that we have put in place of halving violence against women and girls over 10 years, the specialist workers in 999 control rooms that we committed to in the manifesto, the specialist rape investigation units for England and Wales police forces, the police and other interventions to target repeat offenders, and the specialist support in courts to fast-track and support the early resolution of cases are all important, and they are part of the key manifesto commitments that I will refer to now in more detail. Those are important because, as noble Lords mentioned, in the year to March 2024, over one in four women reported experiencing domestic abuse, as well as one in seven men—to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made in an intervention.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned about elder abuse is extremely important. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, both mentioned that. Whatever we say about the level of abuse, abuse with older people may be more hidden, and there may be more confusion and more difficulties, especially in seeking help. We should recognise that, and the Government will certainly reflect on it. For many of the individuals concerned, whatever the level of abuse is, it is a daily occurrence and, tragically, as has been mentioned in a number of contributions, the home is not a safe place, nor does the abuse end when the perpetrator leaves the home. The scale, and the stories mentioned by Members of the House today, should shock us all and lead us to what we need to do, which is to raise awareness and policy issues to tackle this around the country.
I was particularly struck that the briefings before the discussions today did not mention the economic impact in the scale of this problem. I was very interested to learn from the former Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady May, and from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, of the recognition of that economic impact. That is an important point to take away from today.
Quite clearly there is a view from the House that, whoever is in government, we make sure to go further and faster. We are still, sadly, nowhere near where we need to be. I give the commitment that the Government I represent here today are committed to changing that. They require the support of Members who have spoken and of the voluntary agencies mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and others to ensure that we achieve the mission of halving violence against women and girls in the decade ahead.
There are a number of points I want to mention. The question of individuals who have been offenders and reoffend is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran; the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, in relation to alcohol abuse; and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in relation to reoffending, all mentioned that as a key issue. This is a Ministry of Justice, Home Office and voluntary sector issue, but we have to look at what interventions we can make to target the most prolific and repeat offenders. It is a particularly important issue.
The police clearly have a vital role to play in this. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned that, and I endorse the comments that he made. We have just introduced the domestic abuse protection orders—Raneem’s law—in a pilot form. The noble Baroness, Lady May, mentioned that and asked specifically about the full provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 being implemented. I hope I can give her an assurance that the domestic abuse protection orders are the first step on that, and that the Ministry of Justice, which is also party to the Act, is considering full implementation of its Section 62 very shortly. Again, I reach out to her to say that there is, I hope, agreement that this will be done in due course at an early stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, also mentioned the way in which employers treat and look at individuals who are subject to domestic violence, who may be hidden, who may come into work and may have challenges and have their performance in their work impacted by the situation at home. It is an extremely important point. Let me say to her that it is not just in the private sector that there are employers: the biggest employer in this country is the UK Government. I hope I can again reassure her that the Government are working closely with organisations such as the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and that the Government will be, or are soon to be, signing up as members of that alliance. Again, that is a really strong point for the Government as a whole.
Baroness Barran (Con)
A key employer in this is, of course, the police. I am sure the Minister is aware of this. I have never done a day’s training with police officers where at least two or three have not come forward afterwards to disclose that they are victims of domestic abuse and that their partner works in the force. The quickest way to improve our response on the doorstep would be to make sure that the police treat victims of abuse within the force in the same way that we expect them to behave on the doorstep.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that intervention. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the assurance that I will take that back and draw it to the attention of Diana Johnson, the Police Minister, directly, so that she is aware of the issue. The general point here is that Government, as well as regulating, can lead.
I think that the points the noble Baroness, Lady May, made are sound and good. Those are not things I have always said of her, but I mean it in the nicest possible way—we have had several discussions over many years on Home Office responsibilities. I agree with her on this, and I hope that we can work together on those points.
There was also a range of discussion about modern technology. I think it has a role to play. We want to work with the police to ensure that we improve that information, which also relates to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just made. We need data-driven tools and algorithms to track and target high-harm offenders. That again goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned earlier. We also need to look at the issue raised by a number of Members of the House on prevention and education. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, herself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other Members mentioned how we improve standards and teach children, male and female—I suggest, in this context, particularly male children—to be respectful, have healthy relationships and understand the meaning of consent, and ensure that they grow up to be adults who, wherever we can, we put prior activity in for to prevent poor behaviour downstream in due course
Throughout all this, the needs of victims are central. My noble friend Lady Hazarika was very focused on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as the Victims’ Commissioner, self-evidently has a focus on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, also put at the heart of things how the support of the voluntary sector can help victims as a whole. We know that access to housing, particularly when people cannot return to housing, is important. That is a real priority for government, and I am pleased that this Government have announced a funding increase of £30 million to a total investment of £160 million in the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant of 2025-26 to ensure that local councils can provide front-line accommodation services to help support victims in their workplace.
Housing is important, but victims also need holistic, wraparound services. That involves the National Health Service and schools understanding domestic abuse and victims getting appropriate support. We need to focus on the importance of specialist services, with tailored support for victims and survivors in due course. That all takes resource. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, all looked at the question of resources. There is a spending reviewing process, and there will be a spending review for the three years post 2026-27. The Government have to make choices, and these are representations that will be made. A police settlement will be announced next week, which covers a number of the areas funded. We will have to reflect on that. I know again, from representations from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and others, that resources will be key. That will have to play out in its own way over the next few weeks as we go through the spending review, the police settlement and others.
I turn to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. She made three very important points. First, I think that the definition of domestic abuse needs to recognise coercive behaviour and the question of reproductive coercive behaviour. I hope I can reassure her that the current definition is designed to do that. We can discuss whether it does in practice, but that is what it is designed to do. Secondly, she mentioned very clearly the question of honour-based violence. I, and my honourable friends the Ministers Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, have heard loud and clear that there needs to be a robust framework on safeguards for victims. The Government are considering this again. Sometimes I have to stand at this Dispatch Box with a hint but nothing definitive, and I hope that the noble Baroness can understand where we are with that at the moment. She also mentioned domestic homicide. There is a real issue there. The Government are committed to looking at domestic homicide review processes to see whether we can improve them.
The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised the definition of domestic abuse relating to age. Following the terrible case of Holly Newton, which was mentioned by other Members, our thoughts have to be with the family but, ultimately, we have to do something about that. Therefore, it is important that we look at how we record violent incidents and how the victims are supported, whether they are under 16 or over 16. The police must have information to protect victims and take action against the perpetrators. This is something that we can reflect on, and I would welcome contributions from Members on how we can best do that.
My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. This is an issue on which my noble friend Lady Gale has pressed me previously, and I know she will again. The system of settlements under domestic abuse provisions is currently only for those who have an expectation of being able to settle here when they enter the UK. But our policy review is now looking at the very issues that she has raised. I hate to ask for patience on these matters because I know how important this is and how impatient my noble friend is, but if she can have some patience, we will review this as part of the policy review and look at those issues in due course. The UK ratified the Istanbul convention in 2022 and the convention’s monitors visited the UK in January this year. We look forward to receiving their report and then, I hope, the UK’s compliance with the review in due course.
Colleagues also mentioned the tragic murder of Sara Sharif. I am limited in what I can say, for the simple reason that a conviction has happened but the sentencing has not yet happened. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will understand that while we know who is guilty, we do not yet know what the penalty is and any statement from this Dispatch Box would be interpreted as interfering in that judicial process. I am in a difficult position. My noble friend Lady Hazarika and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, raised that issue. Post sentencing, the Government will reflect again on whether there are areas of required action. We need answers. An independent panel will look at those issues in due course. I hope that we can settle that for today, difficult though it is, and in due course reflect on the issues that are ahead of us.
I hope I have covered most of the points that colleagues have raised. To conclude, this Government have a clear agenda to build—
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I made three very important points on spiritual abuse, transnational abandonment and the higher domestic homicide rates among ethnic-minority women, which have not been addressed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Baroness raising those issues again. Can I write to her on those important points? I noted in the steam of the debate all the points that were mentioned. I am trying to respond to as many as I can. I took from her contribution the need for funding, which I have noted. I will reflect on what she said and her subsequent intervention, and will respond in due course. The transnational issue, of individuals being abandoned in a different country, is extremely important. I do not have a policy solution in front of me, but I will take it back to discuss with my colleague, Jess Phillips. I hope that will assist the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, the Government have a very strong agenda which I hope will build on the all-party work and the work done by the previous Government. There is a need to set a target, which we have done, of halving the incidence of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We have a first five-year stab at that in the course of this Parliament. To do that, we have tried to look at how we can improve measures in control rooms, improve measures on perpetrators, improve support for victims, improve the understanding and speed of court cases, and look at how we can settle on resource to ensure that some implications of previous legislation can be implemented. We will be judged on that.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. A lot of good points have been made. As well as reflecting on the bits that I have responsibility for, I will make sure that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, reflect on the bits that they have responsibility for. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Members who have spoken. In slower time, taking the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I will look through Hansard over the next 24 hours. If there are points that I need to respond to further, I will do so.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I thank your Lordships for taking part in this debate. It shows this Chamber at its best when we come together like this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, there are marvellous organisations out there helping victims—but, as she also said, there are still victims who feel they have to go back to the abusive household that they have tried to leave. I hope that in some small way us speaking up today can help, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we need a whole-systems approach.
I thank the Minister for his empathy in this debate. Now I am getting emotional; I knew this would happen. I absolutely swore to myself that I would not. I thank him for his empathy and for all that he is hoping to do on this hideous, awful crime. We can probably never eliminate it, but we can certainly all come together to make sure that everybody has the support they need.
Planning Committees: Reform
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to involving local authorities in the planning process. However, the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that applications that comply with local development plans will not have to get approval from local planning committees. Given that sites in local plans often have very little detail associated with them, how will the Government ensure that local voices are heard throughout the planning process?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to be clear that I do not think local authorities should have the finger pointed at them for holding up planning. However, applications can get stuck, and we need to do all we can to make the processes as efficient and effective as possible. We recognise the great importance of democratic oversight of planning decisions. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and the changes we propose will support that plan-led system by ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible and encourage better-quality development that is aligned with local development plans. The paper puts forward for discussion with the sector three models for how this could work. It is not the intention to exclude local authority members but to get them, and the public, more involved at local plan stage, so that they can influence things at an earlier stage in the process before detailed applications come forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, strategic planning is very important but very difficult for members of the community to grasp. Often, local residents do not get involved until there is a real planning application in front of them, on an allocated site in the local plan. Does the Minister agree that it is at that practical level that local residents have local knowledge that can positively and constructively influence the outcome of a planning application at that stage? Does she agree that we should not deny this useful way for local people to help shape their area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the voice of local people and local councillors in the planning process is absolutely vital. There is no intention to change the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations will be considered by any decision-maker in the process. The best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their areas is through the local plan process, which will be agreed by the council. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will continue to play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. There will be no change to the ability of local people to inform and make their views known about planning applications; this is about speeding up the decision-making.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is not one of the problems with the planning system that a planning application is made which is in clear conformity with the local plan, the planning officers recommend approval but, because it is unpopular locally, the planning committee turn it down in order for the Secretary of State to take the blame? That just wastes a lot of time. Will the proposals that are being considered deal with that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to pick up this point. It is the intention that, where applications are in conformity with the local plan, a speedy decision should be taken. The whole point of these reforms is intended to make that much easier, without removing the ability of local councillors and communities to make their views known on it. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and we hope that the sector will put its views forward. The intention is to speed up the process, not to have planning applications stuck in the system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour to chair the Select Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. One of our most powerful conclusions was that planning and licensing committees should be merged, and that there should be consistent and frequent training of planning and licensing officers before they take their place on these committees. Is that something that the Government might look favourably on introducing? It would increase the effectiveness of the local voice and the way in which planning and licensing committees operate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I must admit that, at my local authority, you had to have training before you went on the planning committee, and I had assumed that that was the case everywhere. It is not. Part of the consultation on the working paper is the introduction of mandatory training. We are considering a wide range of implementation options, and we look forward to working with stakeholders. There are great examples of training around the country. However, it is inconsistent—more inconsistent than I had realised—and we need to find out where the best practice is so that we can work nationally on that issue. I totally agree with her point that the public will have more confidence if they know that people have had training.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that local plans are central to the whole planning process and a vital way of involving local people in what the overall future of their area should look like. Is she able to tell us how many of those local plans are actually up to date? What work is outstanding from local authorities to make sure that they all are up to date?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to mention that. The Government have a stated intention of making sure that all local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. That was not the case when we came into government. A great deal of work has gone on with local authorities to ensure that they are making progress on their local plans. In the National Planning Policy Framework publication today, we see more enforcement steps that we intend to take if local authorities have not produced their local plans. The Secretary of State has been quite clear that, if encouragement does not work, we will use our powers to step in and do it for people. I hope local authorities will realise that the best way to make their local plans is with their councillors and their local communities.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome many of the announcements from the Government today in the NPPF, especially on flooding-risk policy. However, I am concerned about the protection of agricultural land, not least around the vital need to keep the highest levels of food security in this country. Therefore, why was the decision made not to include in the NPPF explicit protection of the best and most versatile land?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When authorities do their housing needs assessment, they will have the opportunity to state why they think that the housing numbers they have been given are too high. If one of those reasons is that they have high-grade agricultural land for food production then they can put that forward as part of their mitigation for having some reduction in the housing numbers. The process is in place to allow authorities to do that; in the same way as would be done for large areas of national landscape in an area, they will be able to put that forward as a mitigation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Minister helpfully said at Question Time that she would be looking at blockages to housing development. Today, she has emphasised that the proposals we are discussing are out for consultation. As part of that, will she examine whether judicial review is overused in planning cases? This can cause delay and increases local authority costs, and other costs, to almost the sole benefit of the legal profession involved in the judicial review.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to get involved in discussions about the merits of judicial review. People need to have some recourse to law at some stage. I will take her question back, because she makes a very good point. If she wants to put in a submission as a response to the working paper, I would be very pleased to consider it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has flagged up the role of elected mayors of combined authorities. As someone who lamented the coalition scrapping regional spatial strategies, I see this as a possible way of replacing those. Can the Minister perhaps flesh out a little how she sees that layer working?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. There certainly needs to be a strategic planning level above the level of local plans. She can expect to see more news about that in the English devolution White Paper that will be coming out shortly.
Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement, which was delivered in the other place last week.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has thanked me for repeating the Statement, but I am not repeating it. This is questions on the Statement.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I apologise to the Lord Privy Seal. We welcome this relaunch and look forward to more in the months ahead. However, the Statement, while undeniably rich in aspiration, is regrettably bereft of a clear plan for transforming its lofty ambitions into real change for the British people.
Few would disagree with the Government’s aims and their six missions. A mission-driven approach to governance makes sense—indeed, it is something that echoes the last Government’s levelling-up missions—but, unless the Treasury waives its dogmatic commitment to rigid silo budgets, it is hard to see it working.
It is encouraging to see the Government recognise the need for clear objectives. There are many words that we welcome, such as growth, value for money, getting rid of waste and accountability. However, as we all know, governance is about more than words; it is about action, and the Government will be judged on what they actually achieve. The Prime Minister has been quicker than most to blame his Government’s shortcomings on the Civil Service, which he describes as being all too comfortable in
“the tepid bath of … decline”.
Yet, while the diagnosis may be accurate, the prescription is notably absent. Indeed, the Prime Minister seems to have been forced into what is known as walking back his words of criticism.
I have spent many years working with civil servants, and I put on record that I believe we have some of the finest civil servants in the world. However, there is widespread agreement—especially among those of us, both politicians and officials, who have had the privilege and responsibility of participating in government—that the Civil Service is not performing to the standards of the modern, effective state. We cannot ignore serious failures identified in several public inquiries: the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon debacle and the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. In each instance, inquiry chairs identified systemic issues: officials neglecting statutory duties, misleading Ministers and, in some cases, deliberately destroying evidence.
Furthermore, institutional failings have been identified over decades, since the Fulton committee report in 1968 and beyond: the cult of the generalist and lack of enough deep pools of knowledge; churn; the unplanned and random movement of officials without regard to business need; and the resistance to influence and incomers from outside. Yet we have heard nothing in the Statement about how this Government intend to address any of those shortcomings. Instead, we are told vaguely that more will be said about reform soon. Government requires more than promises of future promises, and we look forward to hearing the detail of a serious programme of reform.
I have some questions for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. First, raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live, is obviously a good idea, but how is that to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published, and who will be held to account?
Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last one. Why do the Government now believe they will be able to deliver on their commitment to build 1.5 million homes? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?
Thirdly, getting children ready to learn is also a good idea, but what do the Government mean by “ready to learn”? What are the definitions and metrics by which they will be measured and held to account?
Fourthly, the missions are notable for what is not in them. The Government have dropped the target to be the country with the highest sustained growth in the G7. There is no commitment on unemployment or getting people back to work, nor is there, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, any clear objective of reducing migration. The Government have chosen these six issues over GP surgeries and A&E or defence. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain the rationale for the choice of government priorities?
Lastly, can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the purpose and function of the so-called mission boards? Who attends them? What powers do they exercise? What decisions are they empowered to make, and under what legal authority do they operate? Crucially, do they work alongside, or in substitution for, the established Cabinet system of government? Why did the Prime Minister break his promise of chairing these himself?
At the PACAC hearing on 4 December, the Civil Service chief operating officer said that
“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,
and made clear that the publication of the membership terms of reference and regularity of meetings was a matter for Ministers. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal therefore commit to that information being in the public domain, in the interests of transparency and to monitor progress?
Ultimately Governments are judged not by the promises they make but by the results they deliver. This Government have set out an admirable if incomplete wish list but, without a hard-edged commitment to institutional reform and stronger implementation capability, that is what it will remain. Words without action are a disservice to those citizens who rely on public services and who look to government for leadership.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in my view, the targets—or possibly milestones—set out in the Statement are laudable, but I have severe doubts about the Government’s ability to meet them. Setting targets is easy but, without a proper plan for delivery, they are so much hot air.
In an attempt to improve delivery, the Government’s focus is on how budgets are used and whether the right systems are used to deliver policy outcomes. That is clearly crucial. In relation to that, the Statement poses the question: is power being devolved enough? Our view is that it is not being devolved nearly far enough, and that, unless power over budgets and tax raising is devolved to a far greater extent than the Government plan, those on the front line will not be in a position to exercise their discretion to deliver policy in the most appropriate way for the communities in which they live.
So I ask the Government: how rigorously are they going to look to devolve power? Will they report regularly, with reasoning, on the extent to which they have considered and accepted or declined to devolve power in individual policy areas? Given that their targets can be achieved only if the Civil Service is highly motivated, how do the Government believe that recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which cast doubt on the competence and enthusiasm for change of civil servants, will help meet that requirement?
Of the six milestones, I would like to question those on health and housing. On health, how do the Government reconcile their milestone of reaching the standard of no patient waiting more than 18 weeks for elective treatment with the Secretary of State for Health’s statement earlier in the week that the NHS should prioritise emergency treatment and “forget targets”? How is the NHS supposed to know what its priorities are if they appear to be changing from day to day? How can any target in respect of hospitals be achieved unless the Government fix the broken care system, which currently sees so many people stuck in hospital who do not need to be there?
Of all the targets, the one which strains credulity most is that on housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. They seem to think that changes to the planning system will be the most significant contribution towards meeting this target. I do not intend to comment on today’s planning announcement, but no planning changes are likely to come into effect until a year after the election at best. So the Government will have to meet their target with a maximum of four years’ increased rate of housebuilding.
This seems implausible, particularly as the Government have said very little about two of the non-planning policies that will be needed to make this happen. First, what is the Government’s numerical target for the building of social homes? Social houses are desperately needed to meet demand but, without a major increase in social housebuilding, it is very difficult to see how the Government can meet their overall target.
Secondly, where will the workers come from to enable the houses to be built? Present skills shortages in the construction sector make a rapid scaling-up of housebuilding literally impossible. Changes to the skills regime will help, but they will not yield a significant increase in new skilled employees until towards the end of this Parliament. The only way to meet the skills gap in the short term is to allow more migrant workers into the building sector. Will the Government therefore replace the arbitrary salary threshold for work visas with a more flexible, merit-based system to enable this to happen?
Finally, having set such clear priorities, what plans do the Government have to report regularly on their achievements? Will today’s Statement be followed by regular updates on progress? Setting targets is easy, but being able to achieve them is vastly more difficult.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments. Perhaps I should apologise to the noble Baroness; she obviously expected me to repeat the Statement. It may be that that was her mistake in talking about the missions.
The Plan for Change is the milestones. As she will recall, the missions were during the election. They are the long-term ambitions. The milestones—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made—are the progress we make against those missions. It is the milestones that we can be judged against. Whereas the missions are long-term ambitions, the milestones are those that we can be judged against. I can provide the noble Baroness with more information on those.
The noble Baroness talked about siloed budgets. The Government have to work across government, and the noble Lord picked up on mission boards. When you work across government, so many of the issues you are dealing with are not for one department alone. For example, the noble Lord mentioned social care. It is absolutely the case that, unless people move out of hospital into the kind of care we need, we cannot meet the targets to give people elective surgery in the timescales we have set, which is part of the commitment we have made. So, to be clear, there will be higher living standards across the country. The reason for saying that is that we do not want economic growth to be centred on one or two places and work on the basis that this will spread out; there should be economic growth across the country.
I totally accept that 1.5 million homes is challenging: 90,000 of those, by the way, will be social housing. I do not think the noble Lord was here for the Question earlier, answered by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and for her Statement earlier today. We have already started the process. The National Planning Policy Framework is one of those steps. There is also a new homes accelerator and a new homes task force.
Skills are absolutely crucial to this. The work to ensure that the right skills are in the right place at the right time is already being undertaken across government and with industry because, unless industry buys into this, we will not be able to meet the commitment. The noble Lord’s point was well made, but that work is already going on and part of it will be transforming how the apprenticeship levy has been operating and making it the growth and skills levy, which is one of the things the industry has been asking for.
The noble Baroness spoke about the Civil Service. I think she will be aware, and many civil servants will be aware, of the frustration within the system of moving things along. For every new Minister who is enthusiastic about doing things—this is not a criticism of individual civil servants—the system is sometimes difficult to wade through. We want civil servants who are innovative, creative and professional and we want to help them achieve that.
Quite often, a lot of expertise can also come from outside the Civil Service. I do not think Ministers and civil servants should be wary or concerned about looking to outside expertise as well. When the system works well, it works well together. The relationship between Ministers and civil servants is really important. Ministers should not blame civil servants for their own failings. That does not mean that Ministers always have to take Civil Service advice, but it has to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness raised those issues in the context of the infected blood scandal, Covid and Horizon. I think there is some ministerial responsibility in respect of all those, as well, not least promising compensation without budgeting for it properly. That is what we have had to do in this Budget, and we have welcomed the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely right that those compensation schemes are there, but they were not budgeted for at all.
One of the problems I have with the Opposition is that although they say they support all the things we are putting in place to invest for the future—for growth, the economy and the NHS—when it comes to paying for that ambition for the country, they do not like any of the approaches we are looking at. That is the conundrum at the heart of the Opposition.
We should be held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asks how we are accountable. These targets are there for us to be held accountable to, by Parliament and others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked four questions, and I hope I got them down quickly enough. First, she said that the OBR said that we cannot deliver the housing. That is not quite what the OBR said, but we accept it is a very ambitious proposal. I make no apologies for the scale of ambition the Government have, and we are determined to meet that ambition. She also asked a rather curious question, on how we will measure whether children are ready to learn when they go to school. That information has already been collected, and it was found to be wanting. That information is already there so we can measure against the current matrix that is undertaken when kids first go to school.
The noble Lord also asked about ambitions on devolution and whether they will match our proposals. I hate to do this, but can I urge patience? Next week, we will publish our devolution White Paper, and there will be information in that I think will address some of the questions he raises.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I note that in the Statement, the Prime Minister said, regrettably:
“We do not believe that a tawdry surrender to Tory Back-Benchers should be allowed to cut off the dream of home ownership”.
Is it not time we had a bit of honesty, rather than chutzpah, from the Government? The Labour Party, now in government, whipped its Peers in this House to vote for the nutrient neutrality regulations that blocked 120,000 homes. That was the Labour Party’s decision, when the previous Government were seeking to go ahead with home ownership. I hope the Leader of the House will address that point.
Surely, if we really do want to drive up GDP, we need to look at per capita GDP, which has stalled because of uncontrolled and unlimited immigration—which I accept is the fault of the previous Government to a large extent. In that vein, is it not important to have a proper, coherent, time-based and realistic immigration policy to tackle legal immigration as well as illegal immigration, in order to grow per capita growth and the wider economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, on the nutrients neutrality issue, the noble Lord will be aware that the previous Government’s proposal was to override environmental concerns. We were very concerned that there should be mitigations in that legislation to ensure that it did not just override environmental concerns but took those into account. I have listened to some of the discussions on the environment and housing, and the two should go hand in hand: we should be looking to create good-quality housing and a good environment at the same time. I have looked at some of the proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and I both come from new towns, and there are some great examples and some poor ones. Where you have green lungs in new towns, green gyms surrounding housing and nature areas within developments, those are really important. Our commitment is both to the environment and to increasing housing.
On immigration, I can understand the noble Lord’s embarrassment about the last Government’s record. I think we were all shocked when we saw how much the figures had gone up and how inaccurate the previous Government’s figures were. It is fundamental to our polices that economic growth, secure borders and the security of the nation go hand in hand. Some £700 million was spent on a bound-to-fail, flawed Rwanda immigration policy, and we can all think of ways that could have been much better spent—actually processing asylum claims and securing our borders. The Prime Minister has undertaken work, building up relationships with other countries and looking for agreements with them. Some people leave their country and seek refuge, asylum and a better quality of life here because they are fleeing war or poverty, for example. We should be working internationally to address those issues and not just spending a lot of money on flawed policies.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House talk about the use of external expertise in moving forward these milestones and missions. As somebody who came from business and has worked within government, I think different perspectives are very helpful. That is particularly important with very difficult challenges on things such as skills, especially in construction and planning. It is obviously vital that we progress that fast, so I welcome the efforts that have been made. I just wanted to pick up something my noble friend Lady Finn asked, which was about how the mission boards would work, who would be attending, who would be involved and how that fitted in with Cabinet committees and so on.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not have an organogram in front of me, so that is detail I probably cannot supply. But the purpose of the mission boards is to follow the missions we have in government. This is a way of having cross-governmental working, bringing key people together. If the Prime Minister is not available, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is. On that cross-government working, Cabinet committees work, in some ways, and some may still do so, but we felt that the mission boards better reflected the missions we have outlined and made a commitment on.
Lord Birt (CB)
This is territory that I trod for six years when working as the Prime Minister’s strategy adviser. I have also trodden the same territory widely in the public and private sectors. I have a couple of points to make. First, it is entirely right, in any institutional environment, to have ambition—you have to start with that, and it right that this Government have it. A special factor of government is its sheer scale and size, and the multiplicity of departments. The Leader of the House is entirely right to emphasise that challenge. That is why I strongly support the notion of mission boards, which will be operationally not the same as Cabinet sub-committees. I will raise one issue positively and constructively: before you get to milestones, you have to have a holistic strategy that is deeply based on analysis of all the factors in play, which are always dynamic and changing. You always have to refresh your way of reaching ambitious goals.
Secondly, my experience in government was that, overwhelmingly, the Civil Service was properly skilled, very collaborative and fit for purpose—not always but generally. But, dare I say it, that was not always true of the politicians. I have great respect for their skills and experience, but they inevitably sometimes have to recognise that they lack the heavy-duty institutional experience necessary to achieve fundamental reform.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He is welcoming the mission-led strategy with the milestones, and he is right to say that you have to measure them and look at what is behind them overall. He has a point about experience and longevity. The Prime Minister has been wise and has spoken about Ministers being in post for longer—I have some skin in the game here. We saw such a churn of Ministers under the last Government, and it gets very difficult for them to build expertise and relationships with civil servants and stakeholders, only to be moved on. I speak as a Minister who has served in a number of departments over the years, and the good sources of information are the civil servants who have been there a long time, as well as new civil servants—who bring fresh experience to you—and past Ministers in your role.
All of us, at any stage in our careers—whether we are new to the job or have been in it a long time, and whether we are politicians or civil servants—need to find that way of learning from each other, building on the best and having respect for different perspectives. We expect civil servants to give that professional advice and guidance and to understand that we are politicians, who need clarity. I hope the milestones bring that clarity to the workings with the Civil Service as well, so that both politicians and civil servants have clarity about what they are doing. My own experience of civil servants over the years has been very positive. I have never known a civil servant to balk when I said that I wanted outside expertise; they have never had any issue with that, and in fact, they have welcomed it in many cases.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity to develop the issues around young people? It is tragic that over the last 10 to 15 years the opportunities for young people in this country have diminished rather than increased. Some of that is external, but a lot has been caused by decisions taken by previous Administrations which limited what young people were able to do. Now, in the missions and the milestones, we have the opportunity to bring in mental health expertise, with both the voluntary sector and the NHS—alongside the work of improving buses. I can tell you about a youngster who left the care system and was then in a village nine miles away from the DWP offices and the jobcentre. It took three buses to get there. He missed his appointment and was sanctioned. Bringing everything together will make a difference for that youngster but also for lots of others. That is why the White Paper on opportunities for getting people back into work was so important, but the DWP and the department of health cannot do it on their own. You cannot even do it just from the Cabinet Office; it has to be across departments. I hope that the Government are really working to crack those issues, to give our young people real opportunities.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very powerful point. I followed on from her at the Cabinet Office, where we had the v programme in place. I was reminded of that only last week when I had an email from a young man who became a volunteer in my office and is now a mental health worker. He would never have taken that step had it not been for the opportunity to volunteer and the support to do so. She makes a powerful point around linking government together, and I was interested in her comment about mental health as well. Talking to a number of young people, it seems to me that one thing that has quite a significant impact on young people’s mental health is the insecurity of their housing. If we can address some of that to ensure good-quality, secure housing for young people—and that young people are part of the solution in building those homes as well—that goes a long way. The opportunities for young people and the expectations of young people about their future concern us enormously. She is right that the only way to tackle that is across government.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s milestones are very much to be welcomed as steps towards progress in the broader strategy over the years ahead. It is somewhat depressing to find—maybe not surprisingly from the Conservatives but more so from the Liberal Democrats—the dismissive tone saying, “You’ll never achieve those aims. They are quite unrealistic”. Surely it is far better to be overambitious than underambitious. The previous Government set targets—I cannot remember what they were called—in a number of areas. They were going to be met anyway and were not stretching. These are stretching milestones and that is important, particularly in the housebuilding programme—albeit there is a need to change the planning system—and in getting three-quarters of five year-olds school-ready, which is not the case at the moment.
My final point is one I am less happy about. The 13,000 new police officers, special constables and PCSOs, with an emphasis on community policing, are very much to be welcomed, but does my noble friend agree that the comments immediately afterwards by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that he was set to cut police jobs were at best unhelpful—perhaps they were a bargaining chip—and could undermine that process? Can she assure me that Home Office Ministers will meet the commissioner to make sure that this does not undermine the Government’s aims in this area?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right; I suspect the comments may have been perhaps to influence an upcoming spending review. We are absolutely committed to seeing more police officers. I remember when the last Labour Government introduced police and community support officers—named officers in communities—and going to a public meeting in my constituency where they were dismissed by so many as “plastic policemen”, which was quite an insult. One year later, the praise for those officers was off the scale, because they were known to the local communities and their presence was reassuring and had a real impact. We remain committed to that and will seek to deliver it.
My noble friend is right about being ambitious. One thing that worries me about the last Government—or Governments, in a sense, because we had several Prime Ministers—is that people became disillusioned with politics and are now very cynical about seeing politics and political decisions being a force for good. We will do everything we can to meet the ambitions that the country had for us and we have for the people of this country. We know that that these targets are ambitious; they are not targets that will be easy to meet—there would be no point in saying that—but we are determined to meet them, because it is what the country deserves.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that few would disagree with the target to grow the economy. However, as Greens we disagree, because we think that the economy should be there to serve people, to deliver a decent, secure life for everybody and care for our natural world, rather than have the Government directed towards the artificial figure of GDP, which is so unequally distributed. With regard to that unequal distribution, I ask the Minister about the first milestone:
“Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so working people have more money in their pocket”.
Why are the Government explicitly excluding children from having more money be spent on them? Why are the Government explicitly excluding pensioners, most of whom are not working, from this first milestone? Why are the Government excluding those with severe disabilities and illnesses, who may not be able to work? Why are they not included in this milestone?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If that is the best that the noble Baroness can do, I think that the Green Party will be disappointed by her interventions. Those people are not being excluded, but people who get pay packets are working people, which is why the milestone references working people. If she looks at the other measures that we have about child poverty, the triple lock and support for pensioners, she will see that all those are people for whom we want economic growth. I really am amazed that the noble Baroness thinks that economic growth can come only at the expense of the environment. I do not know whether she was here earlier today when I was talking about how we can have better houses, more houses and homes for people, and a better environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am disappointed, because I have to disagree with her: we want economic growth for the benefit of the country and the environment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my question also relates to the first of the six admirable milestones, on having higher
“living standards in every part of the United Kingdom”.
I looked at the document to see how that was to be achieved and saw three bullet points on page 22, the first of which is:
“Deliver growth by working in partnership with businesses”.
Of course, one understands that higher living standards cannot be achieved without working in partnership with businesses, but I was a little troubled by the fact that there was no reference to trade unions or the extension of collective bargaining. Does my noble friend agree that there is no possibility of improving the living standards of the 30 million employees and 4.25 million self-employed workers without the intervention of trade unions and the extension of collective bargaining?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As a member of a trade union myself, obviously I welcome the role of trade unions in business and working in partnership with business, and the benefits that brings to both, but I do not think that is something missing out here. What is focused on here is working in partnership and making sure that
“every nation and region realises its full potential”,
as well as driving
“innovation, investment and the adoption of technology to seize the opportunities … from artificial intelligence to net zero”,
to help
“people get a job, stay in work and progress in their careers”.
The trade union movement would sign up to all those, I would expect, because it wants the best for its workers, as we do as well.
Earl Russell (LD)
From these Benches, I welcome the Government’s progress in making the UK a clean energy superpower. We really welcome the change of tone from the previous Government and the progress that has been made already on onshore solar and removing the de facto ban on onshore wind, as well as the work done on the Crown Estate and in the Great British Energy Bill. Obviously, renewable energy brings us energy security and will help to bring down bills. We welcome also the power to decarbonise power generation by 2030. NESO has clearly said that this is a challenging target, but it is one that we welcome.
I want to make three or four brief points. First, we are still concerned on these Benches about Labour having cut its own budget for environmental matters prior to the general election. A lot needs to be done with urgency and at scale, and I worry that the budget that Labour has available to do all these things is stretched too thinly.
My second point is that this Government need to work to improve their communications and take people with them on this journey, because it is so important. It goes beyond the Labour Party and this Government; our society depends on it. It needs to be communicated and we have to take society with us. That means doing things not just top down but bottom up. It means having citizens’ assemblies, talking to people and cutting our energy bills early on.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his welcome for this. He has an idea of the broad-brush overview of the policies. Yes, the Budget situation is very challenging; it is more challenging than we anticipated. My noble friend Lord Livermore is sitting next to me, and I am sure he will not mind my repeating that it was very difficult for us to have to address the £22 billion black hole in the current year’s spending. Even the OBR did not know about it. It is a challenging financial situation.
I concur with the noble Earl: improving communications and communicating policies are really important. As politicians we too often talk in numbers and matrices, and we sound very boring and disconnected. I have to say that I am quite emotional about a number of the issues in this document, because improving people’s lives and their environments, giving them opportunities and ensuring that healthcare is there when they need it and they feel safter in their streets are things that strike at the heart of what every citizen wants for themselves and their families. I entirely concur with the noble Earl’s point and thank him for his comments.
Small Farms and Family Businesses
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester
That this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s budget proposals on the future of small farms and family businesses.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to Conservative colleagues for giving me the opportunity to hold this very topical and important debate. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say on the matter. Indeed, looking down the list I see that it is populated with titans from this House. I also look forward, albeit with some sadness, to the valedictory speech of my remarkable noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has been a giant at the centre of healthcare for decades, and we are grateful to her for her many achievements.
The achievements by the Chancellor in the Budget are too many for me to list in 15 minutes, so I shall rely on noble Lords following me to elaborate on those I miss. The delinked BPS payments have been summarily cut, out of the blue, with no warning. Money that businesses had earmarked for growth or investment, or to pay the wages of a new tractor driver to undertake all the environmental work on a farm that I know of, has gone. Meanwhile, national insurance contributions have gone up and the baseline has come down. The living wage has gone up way beyond inflation again, with no recognition that this affects the pay differentiation of supervisors and junior managers who are just above employees on the minimum wage or living wage. This will have a huge effect on all business across the country. I know of a small GP surgery in Norfolk that now has another £250,000 added to its costs. Were we not told that this money was to plug the gap in NHS funding?
The cost of employment has become prohibitive, inflation is creeping up and interest rates remain stubbornly high. This Government are making the cost of business prohibitive. Then the Chancellor dropped the “A-bomb” in the Budget, which she followed with a “B-bomb”: agricultural property relief capped at £1 million as if it were personal wealth, instead of what it really is—a business asset.
The president of the CLA, Victoria Vyvyan, visited Lower Leighton Dairy in Wales a couple of weeks ago. It has invested millions of pounds in technology. It is a cutting-edge dairy, an incredible place with inquisitive animals that themselves are valued at over £1 million. Now, all that investment is going to be taxed on death. Will the dairy go to the bank to borrow £10 million again? I do not think so. Why would it bother?
All the CLA and NFU modelling shows that farmers and their businesses cannot afford this change. There is not the profitability in farms or in the diversified farm businesses to pay this tax. I have heard it said on the Government Benches that APR is a loophole—that is so not true. It is a specifically designed policy introduced in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to protect Britain’s family farms from being sold and broken up. For this reason, Governments of all parties have retained APR. APR and BPR are necessary tax reliefs that help people do business across multigenerational businesses.
Ironically, this Government were elected on a mandate for growth. In the rural economy we have the capacity to grow, so instead of taxing small businesses into non-existence, perhaps if they encouraged people to grow their businesses with the right policies, they might end up with more income tax.
While in opposition, Defra’s Secretary of State, Steve Reed, provided multiple reassurances privately and publicly to the NFU and the CLA that Labour had no intention of changing APR. Rural businesses now have no faith in the man or his party, although I have some sympathy for those at Defra and its hapless Ministers. They have been cut off at the knees by an unthinking Treasury.
Outside of agriculture, many small family businesses will be caught by this. According to BDO accountants, in one short month since the Budget, high street retailers had their worst slump since Covid, with November sales tumbling 5.8% year on year. Part-time Christmas job vacancies have fallen by a staggering 12.9% this year. Business confidence, as judged by the IoD, has nosedived to the lowest form since April 2020, plunging from minus 52 to minus 65.
Business leaders are pointing the finger directly at the Chancellor and her tax hikes, with national insurance contribution hikes alone expected to cost industry £7 billion. Wetherspoons boss Sir Tim Martin said:
“All democratic governments need to manage the relationship between an economic horse and the public services cart—society needs both. This Government has disincentivised and discouraged the horse”.
BPR is crucial for family business owners, helping them to plan for succession, with long-term strategies that retain value within the business to drive investment and growth. Changes to inheritance tax create uncertainty among family businesses, which will feed through to reductions in investment, headcount and turnover.
There are currently an estimated 4.8 million family-owned businesses in the UK. They are predominantly very small. Oxford Economics has estimated that 74% have zero employees, owned by people who are themselves self-employed, while 25% have between one and 49 employees. The vast majority—92%—of UK family businesses are worth more than £1 million.
Family Business UK commissioned CBI Economics to undertake research into the effects of the loss of this relief on family businesses. More than a quarter of family businesses expect to change ownership in the forecast period, which is the four and a half years that this Government might hope to have in office. Some 18% of businesses expect to change ownership between April 2026 and 2028, with a further 9% expecting to change ownership between April 2028 and 2030.
There will be a reduction in economic activity as a result of the Budget changes: 85% of family businesses say they will decrease investment by, on average, 17%. More than half—54%—will decrease headcount by an average of 10%. Four in 10—41%—are anticipating reductions in turnover, with an average loss of 7%. An overwhelming majority of family-owned businesses expect detrimental impacts from the changes to BPR, with 15% expecting to have to sell off their business entirely, 2% closing the entire business and liquidating it, and 2% locating the business overseas.
When BPR reliefs are reduced the Government believe that it will bring an increase in tax revenue and, bizarrely, an increase in UK economic activity. But the reality is that an increase in tax burden on businesses due to increased costs will lead to reduced investment, reduced headcount, reduced turnover, partial or full selling of the business, reduced stability and, crucially, reduced competitiveness versus foreign and non-family businesses that do not have to pay these charges or make tax planning a priority. The net result is that the total tax take will be smaller than the Government think they will get. In the process, they will have destroyed thousands of family businesses that are the bedrock of the country’s economy.
Every single Labour Government that ever existed left office with unemployment higher than when they came in; with this Budget, we will see more of the same. The Exchequer is expecting to raise £1.4 billion in tax revenue from family-owned businesses over a five-year period by changing BPR. However, the reality is that the Exchequer can expect a £2.6 billion reduction in total tax revenue from family-owned businesses, caused by reduced activity of those businesses in the same period: less production, less spending, less income and less national insurance contributions. The Exchequer will actually be expected to make a net fiscal loss of £1.26 billion over the next five years.
I return to family farms. Farming has a very small profit margin. We are talking about a return on capital of anything between 0.5% and 0.9% each year, from what a farm’s land, buildings, tractors, equipment and stock are worth. I predict that the impact of the brutal withdrawal of the remaining single farm payment of agri-funding, with no warning, will supress that surplus by a third—let us say a 0.5% return. A tax of 20% over a generation—typically 30 years—comes out at 0.66% recurring. That is clearly unpayable if someone’s return has dropped to 0.5% a year. Can the Minister please acknowledge the mathematics of this question?
Then there is the practicality of actually paying this death tax—because that is what it is, a tax on death. The first instalment has to be paid within six months of the date of death. This can be interest-free and paid over 10 years, but only as long as you have paid the first 10% within the first six months. But how many farms, quite complicated businesses, will even have completed probate by this time? District valuer officers have not dealt with these sorts of valuations for over 40 years—over a generation. I doubt very much whether they will be tooled up with enough resources to provide the service they should and ensure that their letter, or that of the capital taxes office, arrives within six months. What the successors pay on time to qualify for this interest-free allowance will therefore be guesswork. This is unnecessarily cruel when you have just lost your father.
The Government say that 75% of farmers claiming agricultural property relief will not be affected, but most claimants are not even farmers. Nearly 40% of land holdings that claim APR in England are under 50 acres, containing perhaps a couple of horse paddocks. These account for barely 4% of the farmed area, so the Government’s claim is specious. Furthermore, BPR is to be merged with APR, meaning that all tractors and combines—which can cost up to £0.5 million—and stock will fall into the equation too. Therefore, it is very likely that, if the owner of a small family farm dies, his or her successors will be charged IHT at the new rate of 20% on at least some of their assets, even if the land does not reach the APR threshold.
Suppose a farmer is hit with an IHT demand of £500,000; it is very unlikely that that money will be in the bank. Most farmers are either in debt or have very small cash reserves. It is unlikely that they will be able to pay that bill out of income, so they will have to sell some acres—admittedly, for quite a bit of money. However, this will make the farm less viable in future. Sale of land or assets, integral to the viability of the farm, will be the only way to get cash to pay the tax. In this case, they will have to realise an asset, with all the costs of selling it, and then from the profit of selling it, hand back a big chunk to the Government. Of course, they have just become liable for 24% capital gains tax too.
CLA modelling has suggested that, based on differing models of farm size, this may mean selling between 16% and 28% of the farm. A farm is not like a share portfolio or a collection of buy-to-let properties; it is so much more difficult and inefficient to try to sell 20% of a farm. The land cannot be consolidated or relocated.
Who will buy this land? It will not be the neighbouring family farm, as they will be in the same boat. It is more likely to be a very rich individual, to whom a 20% tax hit will not necessarily be a problem. It is much more likely to be a corporate farming business—a corporate that wants the land for energy generation or tree-planting and carbon sequestration; a charity such as the RSPB or the National Trust; a government body such as Natural England or the Forestry Commission; or a local council that may need it as a carbon land bank. What is the single factor that separates these large organisations from a family farmer? They do not die—I repeat to the Minister: they do not die—so they never have to pay this tax, whereas individuals do. That is simply unfair.
IHT is a death tax on family businesses and on small people. It is deeply unfair, when, as I have just illustrated, much larger and wealthier land-owning organisations are exempt from it. I would like the Minister to answer that. One thing I hope this debate does is to shine a spotlight on IHT generally. As I understand it, 96% of people in this country do not pay it and it does not raise a great deal of money.
What we are seeing now in some sections of the Labour Party is the old-school socialist view that land should not belong to an individual: yes, you can own a house, but land should belong to the state. That was Lenin’s view, and he deliberately expropriated land from an enormous number of people, with disastrous effect. Following the Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister was heard to say that, when a farmer dies, it is right that some of the value of the land comes back to the state. Really?
As Jeremy Clarkson said, if Rachel Reeves had wanted to attack landowners such as himself or Sir James Dyson,
“she would have used a sniper’s rifle, but she’s used a blunderbuss”.
I hope that, at the end of this debate, the Labour Government will have gained a greater understanding of the issues at stake. They must surely reconsider this disastrous Budget, or are they really determined to be this tribal and venal? If they are, it will not end well for them. This is structural vandalism of the farming ecosystem by a Government that did not consult, did not listen, did not learn and did not see the flaws in their plan, and that now need to stop, listen and think through the harm that their Budget proposals will cause. They need to step back and understand that APR and BPR are not tax loopholes; they are enablers of successful tax-paying businesses that take multiple generations to achieve the ability to operate in a highly competitive, difficult and volatile market.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for initiating this debate. If last night’s Bill goes through, we may lose from this House a number of people who have first-hand knowledge of farming and whose going will leave the countryside immeasurably less well represented in this House.
I declare my interests as president of the Countryside Alliance and as a small livestock farmer on Exmoor—too small to be affected by the APR changes, which I will talk about. We are, I hope, debating the unintended consequences of a government policy that has pitched its figures for those likely to be affected by the changes proposed far too low. Also, it will affect those beyond whom the Government say are the target: tax-dodging non-farmers. In fact, it now catches farms with anything over 200 acres. The blow to them is exceptionally cruel, because it strikes not just at the pockets, as most tax rises do, but at a whole way of life, at people’s families, at their homes and at the futures that they had planned.
The Treasury cannot have intended to put one of my near neighbours, a widower in his late 80s and in poor health, in the position of having to die before April 2026 or leave his son and young family who share the farmhouse with him with a tax bill which his advisers say far exceeds any profit that the farm is likely to make over the next 10 years. There have already been suicides. Most farmers have a gun. I hope that the Treasury is listening, because this is urgent.
I believe the Government know that they have got this one wrong. The question is: how do they get out of the mess? I invite Ministers to sit down and correct me if I am wrong on any of the things that I now say.
Defra has not denied that it was not told about this change until the day before the Budget. Steve Reed, as shadow Environment Secretary, went around the farming groups reassuring them that it was not even “in contemplation”, and I believe he is an honourable man. The industry was not consulted, and it was not just Defra. Where was the rural-proofing to which this Government are committed? I hope the Minister will tell us, if he can, because so many other departments and policies are going to be adversely affected.
Net zero requires investment from the farming industry, yet this policy is a disincentive to invest. What about growth? This policy means a cutback on each owner’s death. Small farmers may be asset-rich, but the money is in the farm, not in the bank, so that means they will have to sell land, and possibly even the whole farm. Surely you do not increase productivity by selling off the means of production.
If the land has to be sold to pay, who will buy it? The noble Earl has made some suggestions. All those people who are likely to buy it will be either industrial livestock farmers, who we condemn abroad, or the environmental groups and charities that will plant trees and rewild or find better ways of using the land to make better returns. Where does that leave us on food security, given that the food strategy which the Government have embraced says we must increase our production?
What about rural unemployment, given not only the wage rises which apply to all employers—national insurance and the minimum wage—but the rampant inflation in the cost of farm inputs? This is the last straw, and a disincentive to farm for the future and take people on.
I am very much afraid that my Government—and I stress “my” Government—have underestimated public affection for family farms. When you turn on the television or the radio, it is there. It is not just Clarkson, there is the Yorkshire Shepherdess, “The Archers” and “Lambing Live”. This rightly is seen as an attack on a way of life which is held in great affection, far beyond the farming community. In the last few weeks, all those trees came down in the storm. Who cut them up and took them off the road first thing so that people could get to work? It was the small, local farmers.
Good will towards my party in the countryside was higher than I have known it for many years at the time of the general election. That is no more. There are over 100 Labour MPs representing rural seats. Good will and trust are essential for the success of any Government, even one with a large majority. It is surely time for the Government to sit down with the agricultural industry and put these figures right.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this debate today and enabling us to talk about these issues.
I welcome the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, not because she is going but because it gives me the chance to say something about her. She has done so much for women’s health, in particular maternity care and empowering women to choose the sort of birth that they want. She then went on, among other things, to look at pelvic mesh repairs, which had not been much talked about and were affecting many women’s lives so adversely.
I first met the noble Baroness here through a shared interest in food and health, and the food and health agenda is very relevant to today’s debate. One of the biggest issues facing farmers today—I suggest that it is bigger than APR—is the state of the food system itself. Who sells what to whom, and where do the profits go at each stage of that transaction? Farmers produce good, wholesome food; how then can it end up as ultra-processed food?
The report of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, concluded that the Government should develop a
“comprehensive and integrated long-term food strategy”
to fix our broken food system. Sue Pritchard, the CEO of the Food, Farming and the Countryside Commission, said:
“There is a clear and urgent economic case for changing the UK food system … As things are, Big Food companies are profiting from developing, making and marketing unhealthy food, leaving people with too many unhealthy options—while farmers struggle to make ends meet”.
There you have it. That is why farmers are particularly struggling. It did not start with this Government.
There are things not in the power of the Government that really are affecting farmers very adversely, including extreme weather challenges—that has to be a huge one—and biosecurity incidents, as was highlighted at Question Time today. Then there are the things that the Government are responsible for, such as the tax changes. I am sure that much will be said about APR today, so I will simply say that I feel that the Government set the threshold too low, especially considering land prices.
I want to talk more about the massive increase in land values that has had such a swathe of negative effects. It is much harder to enter farming now, for example. I believe that some of the massive increases in land values should be returned to the public. The Government need to devise how to do that, rather than hit simply on family farms.
Guy Singh-Watson, who made Riverford Farm in Devon so successful, with its vegetable box scheme, made the point that he farms both in Devon and in the French Vendée. In France, the price of land is less than a 10th of its equivalent in Devon. Why is that? I spent a bit of time in France, and I have seen that you cannot just buy up land speculatively because the Government make sure that the people buying it are serious farmers and are qualified to farm. Even the local mayor has a say in that. Some noble Lords may say that there is too much control there, but it has meant that land is available for genuine farmers.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for promoting this debate, and I declare my interest as a retired farmer who has already handed on to his son.
To plagiarise LP Hartley’s famous opening lines: “The farm is a foreign country: they do things differently there”. There is a different culture, with different priorities, in this foreign country. Here is where humans work from dawn to dusk, weekends included, to harness the soil, with its miraculous ability to produce growth. Here is where those humans manage this growth to feed the nation, and where most are simultaneously nurturing the soil and biodiversity so that the next generation can also feed the nation—live as if you die tomorrow, but farm as though you live for ever.
Those nurturing these farms do it not for the small amounts of money desperately needed to keep the bank at bay but because they have come to love the land on which they were reared. The rewards are the pride they have in their own work—there is nothing better than harvesting a crop that you yourself have sown and grown—and pride in the local recognition of being good stewards. To sell would be a betrayal of their duty, a betrayal of their grandchildren, and to fail in the eyes of their community. Underlying this morality in this foreign country is a key emotion that says to them that they do not own the land, it owns them. As I say, the farm is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
These inheritance tax changes will undoubtedly force family farms to sell their assets—which they know how to manage better than any man alive, which is a key point—thus placing more land in the hands of large corporations. It is a form of madness to change this tax when food security is now more important than ever in our fragile world and when the Government’s stated priority is growth—it cannot be the growth of food, nor of business. Business property relief is vital to all family businesses, wherever they might be based, such as key local shops or those that make the nuts and bolts that keep our wider economy on track. These businesses have involved the owners, and probably their parents before them, working all hours to make a living, earning the respect of their community and paying their annual taxes to the Government year in, year out—a Government who now seem determined to undermine them and their country’s economy.
We are a nation of shopkeepers, of family businesses. It is the essence of what we are and what makes us so resilient. So why attack rural and other businesses in this way, for comparatively small reward, when your declared priority is economic growth? Surely a priority is a policy that trumps all other interests and prejudices. It makes no sense. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes our countryside tick and re-emphasises my point about farms and family businesses being a foreign country to our political masters. If this goes through as it currently stands, they will never be forgiven.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this timely debate. Let us not beat about the hedgerow: the Government’s Budget proposals are bringing huge stress and deep concern to the farming community, as we have already heard. For many, this is the final straw after years of challenges.
I have become aware of a particularly tragic circumstance in south Norfolk where, due to a terminal cancer diagnosis, if the farmer survives after 5 April 2026, the policy change will have a huge impact on his family’s well-being and fortunes. That pressure puts enormous strain on him, almost wishing him to die sooner, because then the farm will be safe.
What of situations of the unexpected sudden death of a young farmer? The family would not only have lost the primary breadwinner but would probably have an unsustainable farm to carry on farming.
For others considering a lifetime gift, I am hearing deep concerns about the fact that you need to be able to afford to make it. The challenge is what you are going to live off or where you are going to live, because farming businesses have been squeezed in so many ways. In many cases, there is simply not the spare cash available outside funding capital, machinery and living costs.
All of this is affecting the well-being and mental health of our farming communities. The suicide rate among male farmers is three times the national average. Thank goodness, at a time like this, with added worries and pressures, that we have organisations such as the Farming Community Network and the excellent YANA charity in Norfolk ready to provide a listening ear and practical advice.
It is not just farming finances: there are wider implications of this policy change. If small farms have to be broken up or are no longer viable, there is a major risk of multinationals buying up family farms. That is likely to negatively impact the 30 by 30 biodiversity target, as research shows that smaller farms tend to have higher biodiversity.
A second impact, which I am sure the Government will be concerned about, is around community cohesion. Farming families have played, and continue to play, an important and valuable part as community leaders, volunteering in their neighbourhoods as local councillors and churchwardens, and running agricultural and county shows. Fewer farms, fewer people.
So let me dare to ask the Minister whether he will pledge to do two things. The first is simply to raise the threshold on APR. The Treasury’s own figures estimate that a substantial amount of the money raised through these reforms will come from the wealthiest 2% of farm estates. Raising the threshold will not make a great deal of difference in terms of tax revenue. Secondly, please tweak the rules around tax-free gifts made in the seven years before death and exempt people over a certain age, so that farm owners who die in the next seven years have an opportunity to make tax-avoiding gifts in light of the Budget changes. This seems to be eminently sensible and compassionate.
Wendell Berry, the American poet, essayist and farmer, has reflected that the agricultural economy has almost always, from the earliest times, been slanted against the primary producers, the real risk takers, the real workers. Our farming families feed our nation. They provide nature benefits. They contribute to the warp and weft of community life. We need them. We owe them a fair system. I urge the Minister to choose a positive way forward.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on calling this debate and on bringing to it his customary knowledge and experience. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich: that is three speakers from Norfolk already in this debate.
The tax changes for farmers announced in the Budget have sent shockwaves through every rural community in the land. People feel betrayed—we have heard evidence of that—and let down by the Government, and with reason. Why? Because the Labour manifesto promised that it would champion British farmers, because Keir Starmer’s pre-election speech to the NFU promised a constructive relationship with the farming industry and because, as we have heard this afternoon, government departments apparently cannot agree on how many firms will be affected. I believe that the Treasury is claiming that it is only a quarter—but it would, wouldn’t it? Defra, which was not consulted, claim that it will be two-thirds. This is not a good basis for a farm business plan.
All this follows cuts to grants for nature restoration and for the promotion of British food and the pausing of capital grant offers. Every rural community will be affected, and this matters. Our farmers produce 60% of our food. Food security becomes ever more important when the incoming United States President is telling the world that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the language. It is important because farmers care for 70% of our land. They are the guardians of our countryside and environment. Above all, it is important because the rural economy depends heavily on the prosperity and stability of the farming sector. The Government so far show no sign of understanding this basic fact, although they should after this debate. They should, at least, act on the recently revised advice from the IFS and tweak their plans.
I have comments from three businesses based in north-east Norfolk. Nicholsons, a farm machinery business established in 1937, faces a huge annual rise in wage costs from national insurance increases. It says that uncertainty over the the future of family farms will reduce its income, with the consequence that:
“Investment in people, infrastructure and technology will have to further reduce … firms will fail”
and jobs will be lost. The second comment is from a large animal veterinary practice with 23 staff. Because of the national insurance increases, it has to increase its fees. The director fears that, because of the Budget changes for farmers, the practice and all such practices will lose many of their farm customers, with dire consequences for the whole veterinary profession.
The third comment concerns grain merchants. Mr Dewing writes that, as a result of tax changes for farmers, the farming industry will focus on holding on to cash, reducing capital investment, employee numbers and investment in diversity projects. He adds:
“The Budget is killing employment, investment, UK family businesses, rural economies and structures, confidence in government, and the future of an industry which once ‘dug for victory’”.
The Government must change their mind.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I too very much welcome this debate. Like other speakers, I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for tabling it. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard.
I declare my interests. Until six years ago I was a tenant farmer, having started farming in 1971 with very little capital. I mention this because I know what it is like to be under serious financial pressure. I can relate to those thousands of family farms—farmers who are worried, stressed and unsure about the future of their businesses. I know what it is like to lie awake at night knowing that there is not enough cash to pay the bills, having difficult conversations with the bank manager when the overdraft limit is exceeded, having to arrange extended credit and having lots of hire-purchase agreements.
On top of all that, those farmers who demonstrated a couple of weeks ago and came to town yesterday with their tractors have had to contend with the most extreme weather events in history. Many are embracing the change in policy—the transition to ELMS—and finding it incredibly complex and difficult to access. The rules keep changing and the RPA records are unreliable, according to a friend of mine who has been a consultant on environmental schemes for 25 years. He tells me that
“there seems to be a hostile culture within Defra and the RPA to farmers causing worry and stress over tiny details. The SFI is the most complicated scheme yet designed, mostly due to rotational options and multiple schemes on the same farm”.
The previous Government promised that leaving the EU would be a great opportunity to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and complexity. The reverse has happened. In addition, the recent decision by Defra to suspend capital grant applications is causing confusion and concern. A friend of mine has embarked on an arable reversion scheme within the SFI and everything is in place—the crops sown, the field ready and the stock purchased—but he is now unable to get the grant to put the fence up to graze the field. It does not make sense.
Against this background, the Budget decision on inheritance tax has been the final straw. I applaud the Chancellor on achieving a remarkable feat. She has succeeded in completely uniting the entire farming sector: landowners, owner-occupiers, tenants, the NFU, the CLA, the TFA, the NSA, the CAAV and numerous other organisations. The decision to change the rules on APR and BPR demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the way the countryside is managed and the crucial role of the family farm.
There is confusion about the numbers affected. To take a snapshot of one year, as the Treasury appears to have done, is far too simplistic. The CAAV is quite clear that, over a generation—and that is what we are facing here: the ability of one generation to pass on to the next—75,000 businesses will be affected. This is potentially devastating for farming families.
A lady spoke to me after the demonstration a couple of weeks ago. Her aunt, who is 86, asked whether she thought the assisted dying Bill would be in place next year, because she needs to die next year before the changes to inheritance tax take place. Otherwise, her family will have to sell the farm.
This is a big mistake. The Treasury needs to review the detail. To try to capture those who are investing in land only as a tax shelter is perfectly understandable, but to destroy thousands of family farms in the process is unacceptable. Farmers are not good at succession planning, and many have been advised not to do it. Give them more time to prepare. Raise the limit. Do something to reduce the risk of potential devastation that this Budget will cause.
Incidentally, I feel rather sorry for the Defra ministerial team, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, stated. They worked hard before the election to build relationships with farmers and growers with significant success, and the Chancellor has chopped their legs off. Farmers feel undervalued and unsupported. This inheritance tax issue needs to be reviewed.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing this debate to the House, as it is of fundamental importance that we discuss the impact of the recent Budget on the UK’s rural community. Obviously, it would have been preferable that the discussion on the impact of the Budget measures had been assessed before their announcement, but that was not what the Government chose on this occasion. It means that policy decisions have been made on flawed data.
We have heard much from the Government about how the changes to agricultural property relief will impact on only relatively few farming families, but the reality is somewhat different, certainly in Northern Ireland. This week the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland published an analysis of the impact of the budgetary measures. The figures are stark. The price of land in Northern Ireland is high, for a variety of reasons, and the latest government figures for 2026 projecting forward are that it will cost £21,000 per acre. That figure covers agriculture and business property on farms. This means that farms that own greater than 19.5 hectares of agricultural land will be caught by the new measures announced in the Budget. That is 50% of the farms in Northern Ireland. Those figures are not from farmers or their union, the UFU, but from the government department in Northern Ireland. Even more striking is that this covers 80% of total farmed land in Northern Ireland.
I think noble Lords will agree that those are devastating figures, which is why solutions will have to be found before 2026. Food security for the whole of the UK is at risk. Why do I say that? Noble Lords will say, “Surely Northern Ireland is only a small part of the equation”. It is true that we have a population of only 1.9 million, but our farmers produce enough food for 10 million people, and 6 million of them are here in Great Britain. As a former Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, I know the importance of the agri-food industry very well. It is simply the largest economic driver in Northern Ireland. That is why these new tax rules will have a disproportionate impact in Northern Ireland, on not just our rural communities but our economic well-being.
The next issue is that these tax rules, if implemented in full, will cut to the very heart of the fabric of rural Ulster. If farms have to be sold to pay tax bills, families will leave the rural way of life. That will bring hugely negative changes to our society. Schools, rural shops, churches, sporting organisations—life will fundamentally change if there are fewer rural dwellers. Of course, farmland is not just an asset; it is a legacy, a symbol of perseverance, and a promise to future generations. We have to allow that promise to be fulfilled.
The well-being of our rural dwellers is also of huge concern. We all know that farming is a solitary profession, and mental ill-health is often an undiagnosed issue. The implications of the tax burden have added to farmers’ worries, and that cannot be dismissed. I commend the National Farmers’ Union’s president on trying to explain the emotional stress yesterday to the Select Committee in the other place. Whether you are an elderly farmer worrying about estate planning or a young farmer wondering whether it is worth the worry taking on the debt that you would have to take on to keep the family farm going, it is a really worrying time. Yes, farmers are particularly bad at succession planning—I used to be a country solicitor before I entered politics, so I know it all too well—but they often work for very little just to have the hope of handing on the farm to the next generation. This policy threatens that hope and adds to the growing burden on farmers. They are already under pressure from government regulation and supermarket powers.
So solutions have to be found. Of course, I would prefer the tax to be scrapped but, if that does not find favour with the Treasury, please set the threshold much higher—so you are not attacking the rural way of life—or have a definition of an active farmer and exempt active farmers from the tax. That would deal with those who are buying up farmland for other purposes. That is what happens in Germany and the Republic of Ireland, so solutions are available. I really hope the Government take the time to listen to those solutions, because farmers are fair people and it is wrong to attack their way of life.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness’s interesting speech, for which I thank her.
Farming should be a really important subject of concern. In this country, we are 50% reliant on food from abroad. The Government may well stock vaccines for pandemics, increase GP numbers and cut health service waiting lists—all moves to appease critics—but we must never forget that the first essentials for life are food and water.
I have lived in tied houses on a farm that my husband managed. I witnessed the collapse of 10 smaller farms, now incorporated into one big unit, which, like so many industries, has had to change. The farm is now highly mechanised and efficient, but the margins are tiny.
I think the policy of taxing large, efficient farms out of existence in an uncertain world is wholly ill-conceived. These enterprises will become fragmented. Less efficient farmers have already been reclassified as not being working people. How come? I know from experience that producing food is a seven-day-a-week job.
While my husband farmed, I was able to bring about some changes in the NHS—for instance, giving nurses the right to be practitioners and to prescribe. That was part of women’s liberation, as well as using the workforce much more effectively.
We closed great, out-of-date Victorian mental institutions. So-called fallen women, handicapped people and others with shell shock lived in those institutions. I thought that was a poor existence, so we did close them and put the people into the community—or gave them an opportunity to be in the community.
With friends, I started one of the first rural playgroups for children aged under five. The playgroups were opposed at the time by a formidable neighbour who had no children of her own, and I was told by her in no uncertain terms, “Mothers should look after their own children, day and night”. Well, some of us did to some extent, while some of us had relatives who were very forgiving and who took part in bringing up my children.
Changes are important. I remember clearly going to boarding school at the age of eight, and the first question I was asked was, “My dear, where is your ration book?” Today there is a belief that food will always be plentiful and affordable. However, that is really not a sustainable policy for the long term. Would any Government expect manufacturers to close or sell off part of their factory? That is what they expect the agricultural industry to do. Their policy is that the expected shortfalls will be made up by imports from abroad.
We should remember the thousands who lost their lives in the wartime convoys trying to bring food to Britain as the population—including MPs and Ministers—drift further away from farming roots, in the knowledge that many people will have scant ability to grow food. We must support farmers, and it is time for food to be priced realistically.
I beg noble Lords’ patience for just a minute. It is no secret that this is the last formal occasion that I have to say a few words in your Lordships’ House in this wonderful Chamber. I want to thank so many—the army of secretaries, advisers, professional staff and, not least, all the Members of this House. I have learned so much from all my colleagues and I have enjoyed my time here. I am truly grateful for the debates, the incisive questions and the contributions made by all noble Lords that enrich all our debates.
Of course, with regrets, I leave. But I know that this House is in very good hands and I look forward with excitement to reading Hansard—did you know that Hansard can be exciting?—and discovering the progress on some of the subjects that really are so dear to my heart.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has been a remarkable Member of this House and we are very lucky to have had a speech which was so characteristic of her. My noble friend was in this House 16 years before I came here, and I came 18 years ago. So she has been here an awfully long time and has done so much.
The House listens to her in a way that it does not listen to others. When she rises, whether at Question Time or in debate, the House gives way to her, because Members know she is an interesting contributor to whatever is being discussed. She has done so much. She is really well known. She was known in my household when my wife was involved with social services in Lincolnshire. She has been involved in all these reports on community nursing and maternity services and the emancipation of women through medical care and home care. My noble friend was also a Minister in the Department of Health when my noble friend Lord Waldegrave was the Secretary of State. He and I share offices and I know he pays tribute to her as well.
Hers has been a dedicated life, lived for others, and she has achieved so much. She is quietly spoken but, as her former Chief Whip, I can say that she is steely of purpose. I think her vocation came from her early education. She described being taught to care for others and, by caring for others, she herself has taught us that we can help, wherever we sit in this place, by caring for other people.
I turn now to the subject of the debate. My interest in this debate is twofold. People will know that I am a farmer and grower. In fact, I am retired from my family business; like others, I have moved on. I moved here House instead. It is a very important business in its sector.
I believe that this particular debate gives us a chance to show the impact this will have on businesses such as my own family’s. Fortunately, it has not affected my generation but it will successive generations. I have a grandson at Newcastle University—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle will be following me later—who wants to go into the family business. Our customers are small businesses in the main: garden centres and retailers. We all face the imposition of a tax on death that is a total disincentive to what really matters.
I believe in the Government’s growth agenda and I want it to succeed; I want this Government to provide this country with economic growth because that will furnish us with everything that we plan for ourselves and our colleagues, in terms of care, education, training, job opportunities and everything else. I believe they have made a great mistake with this tax, because they have destroyed the concept of investment and that is what is needed for people to make progress in business. If investment is going to be taxed on death, it is a discouragement from making that sort of investment.
We need to achieve food security in a global world that needs food and be efficient in the way we produce it. Our farmers need to feel that they are doing the right thing by investing in the future of their business, and they will be discouraged by the concept that they may well be taxed on the benefits that they are giving through their life’s work within such a business. It is a global task, and the farming industry needs investment just like any other.
I asked the Minister about this, and he replied to my Written Question on Monday about the consequences of this tax. There is no impact assessment; there is no concept in Government of what the impact of this tax will be. I think we have all gathered what it may well be from this debate, but there is no impact assessment. Instead, I got a scenario about how the tax will be levied.
I am president of the Institute of Agricultural Management. I believe in investment, in progressive agriculture and that we can do better than we do now. We are doing well now but we can do better, but only if farmers are encouraged to invest. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Leicester in moving this debate, investment will actually increase tax yields and give the Government more money. I cannot, for the life of me, think why they chose to take this path. I regret it very much and feel that it is a great mistake.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. It is the season, so I will try to lighten the mood by offering some congratulations. The first is to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her amazing valedictory speech and remarkable career. I live on the west bank of the River Exe and grew up in the shadow of Exminster’s Starcross and Langdon hospitals—mental institutions that she described. She really transformed our community with that work, so I am hugely grateful. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for calling such an important debate and gathering such a wise group of heads to address this important issue; and the Minister and the Government, for they have managed to convert London into Paris or the Thames into the Seine. We have Monet at the Courtauld and revolting farmers across the boulevards of our fair city.
I note my interests: I am a farmer in Devon and inherited farmland and a local long-owned family business relatively trouble-free under the previous rules. I am also a lawyer at a law firm, based in the south-west of England and London, that advises numerous rural businesses. I congratulate my partners, who will have an awful lot of work over the next few years advising these poor rural businesses on how to deal with this terrible and very surprising change in the tax regime for rural family businesses. I also congratulate the Government, who achieved something quite notable: the urban population, who do not really know how rural businesses work, were surprised that farmers are so wealthy in assets and did not pay any inheritance tax. This has cast a fresh light upon how our farming and rural businesses work.
There are some good things about this policy. I remember, as a relatively young man, being incredibly disappointed when my father discovered that he could own the family business until death and that that was to his and my benefit. It meant I would not get my hands on the business until very late in life. Speaking seriously, there is a good thing in this policy—I will give the Labour Party some credence here—which is that we will get farms and family businesses into the younger generation’s hands sooner. We have complained for years about flatlining productivity in the rural economy and farming. If we can get these businesses into younger and more ambitious hands sooner, that may be a good thing. However, the way the Government have done it is so cruel.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, about how individual farmers—those in their 70s and 80s, who have planned their lives and their inheritance based on these reliefs—are in an incredibly cruel spot right now. I implore the Government please to think again: they do not need to change the policy, but please soften the impact, as some people are really suffering.
Many other aspects of this Budget are challenging for rural businesses and farmers. The inheritance tax burden is apparently payable over 10 years, but delinked payments for BPS have decreased to £7,600 a year without any notice. No one has mentioned the carbon border tax. Importing fertiliser, which impacts every single piece of food produced in this country, will have £50 a tonne added by 2027. That will impact all of our food production. The increased cost of employment in rural businesses is incredibly cruel too. So please think again. I look forward to the rest of this debate.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on this debate, and I take this opportunity to say a fond goodbye to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege—and not only that but a thank you. She is one of the few people who have changed this country for the better.
Promoting growth is supposedly the Prime Minister’s number one priority:
“productivity growth in every part of the country”,
screamed the Labour Party manifesto. That is absolutely a laudable goal, but is it realistic? Unfortunately it is not. Growth comes from the private sector, not state employment. Productivity in the state sector is below the level seen in 1997, yet state workers have been rewarded with significant pay rises, which will be paid for by the private sector.
The £40 billion in tax rises in the Budget, so applauded by the Cabinet, was
“an egregious act of self-harm”.
It will
“kill entrepreneurship, snuff out wealth creation and stunt growth”.
The Government would do well to heed these words of Sir James Dyson, one of Britain’s leading industrialists.
The consequences will be severe, and we have already witnessed the sharpest fall in hiring for four years, with huge damage to the employment prospects of many and the inevitable increase in unemployment to come. It is a remarkable feat, even for this Labour Government, to alienate the entire food sector in under six months in office. The most recent Defra English farm profitability data demonstrates that 30% of English farms lost money in the last year, with another 25% making less than £25,000, even when all the income streams were accounted for, with hill and upland farms suffering the most. Does the Minister realise that we have lost 7,000 farm businesses since 2019?
There were no significant pay rises for farmers. Instead, the Government poured petrol on to the flames of an industry in crisis. In addition to the ideological attack on farmers by changing the APR and BPR rules in the Budget, there have been announcements on changes to employee national insurance and 4x4 double cab tax rules, an immediate reduction in BPS from original timescales, no increase in ELMS payments despite input cost increases, a carbon tax on fertiliser imports from January 2027, the pausing of most of the capital grant schemes, the Defra review into farming rules for water guidance and delays to SFI applications.
Furthermore, climate change is resulting in more extreme rainfall events, which is challenging the ability to farm heavy land. Its viability was formerly aided by grants for drainage and the advent of pesticides and fertilisers. About a third of lowland England is relatively low-grade clay soils, and these fields are becoming waterlogged and unviable. This will have a significant implication for food production and food security. A catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes and the Government do not seem to care.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I commend her speech and her lifetime of bold interventions.
Stretching from the Scottish borders to the River Tyne, my diocese is largely made up of farming communities. For many, farming is about much more than making a living and has been their way of life for generations. A tractor horn outside this Chamber yesterday loudly proclaimed that “Old MacDonald has a farm”,’ but for how much longer?
I appreciate that the Government intend to target wealthy landowners buying land to avoid tax, but I fear that they have not adequately considered the impact on tenant farmers. The north-east has the highest regional proportion of tenant farmers. I pay tribute to my noble friend from the north Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who spoke from his own experience. Following the Budget, farming tenants are now faced with a greater lack of security. What assessment has been made, and will be made, of the impact that the changes to inheritance tax will have on tenant farmers?
Furthermore, only 32% of farming land in the north-east is arable. The national average is 52%. Most farmland in the region is used for upland and hill sheep farming. These farms receive a lower income, with the average business income for hill farms in 2023-24 being £23,500. Many farming families in Northumberland are cash poor, and hidden poverty is widespread. Hill farming requires less land than arable farming, meaning that under the new tax reforms, if a family is forced to sell their land to pay inheritance tax, in many cases there would not be enough land left to make the farm viable. As a farmer at the Hexham auction mart said last week: “If I die, that’s it”. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that the changes to inheritance tax will have specifically on upland and hill farmers?
I finish by sharing the situation of a farming family in Northumberland, where three generations are living in one farmhouse, with five adults and three children. Three of the adults have full-time jobs away from the farm to make ends meet but spend their evenings and weekends working on the farm. Last week, the grandfather had to take time off work to sell his sheep at the auction mart. Families such as this one illustrate how farming is not simply a way to make money but their way of life. If a death were to occur in this family, three generations would be left without their home.
I urge the Government to truly consider the impact of these reforms and encourage them to have continued dialogue and an assessment of the impact on farming families and rural communities—the people to whom we owe the food on our tables.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in owning a small farm in Devon, not too far away from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to whose speech I listened with great interest. I hope that her noble friend on the Front Bench listened with equal interest and took note of the very powerful arguments that she and other noble Lords have put forward today.
I start my remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, whose valedictory speech, to which I listened with such care, was so splendid. She really is an extraordinary person—an extraordinary Member of your Lordships’ House. She is kind, compassionate, committed and deeply knowledgeable—and great fun, if I may say so. Whenever I see my noble friend, I am taken back to 31 May 1992, the day when I made my maiden speech—from the very seat that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, occupies at the moment—holding that Dispatch Box as a rather windy 25 or 26 year-old. My noble friend was kind enough to hand over the keys to the famous Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill, which she allowed me to take to Second Reading. I am deeply grateful to her for her trust in me and for all the guidance that she has given me since that time.
The House is full of experts on farming, and I am not one of them, but I have listened and learned a lot from the debate today. I will use my small allocation of time to look at the broader context of farming. It seems to me that a gulf has arisen between the regulators and the regulated, between government and the farmers, and perhaps between Defra and other arms of government. That is a regrettable situation. The industry needs to have confidence that the Government are knowledgeable, deeply understand the issues that farmers face, and are able to be their champion and make representations within the broader government effectively. That is not the case at the moment. In case the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench thinks that this is a party-political point, it really is not; it is a gulf that has grown up over a long period of time.
The farming industry is unique in its national strategic significance, but much of it is delivered by small, multigenerational family businesses. It is hugely capital intensive, as we have heard, but it produces very small returns. It is intertwined with national and international government policy, yet the farmers are also the instruments of delivering government environmental policy. Farmers take their role as stewards of the countryside incredibly seriously, but they need to understand what the Government’s agricultural policy is. To my mind, it is not clear. The weight with which food production is put right at the centre of that strategy is not clear. Farmers have to deal with a great deal of complexity in interacting with Defra, with perverse incentives not to grow food. It makes one wonder at the strength of the commitment at the centre to food production.
A great indication of the strength, confidence, wisdom and maturity of a Government is that they listen when powerful arguments are put to them. I hope that the Minister on the Government Front Bench will demonstrate that when he replies to the debate this afternoon.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s Budget proposals talk about addressing the £22 billion fiscal gap, but, as a result, they are undermining the viability of our family-run farms, disrupting food security and having a long-lasting effect on our rural communities. I refer to the reform of agricultural property relief, or APR, and business property relief, or BPR. This will, in effect, lead to 20% tax over a value of £1 million, on top of a national living wage increase of 6.7%, which will raise labour costs for farmers, as well as the phasing out of direct payments.
I think that many farmers will regret voting for Brexit, as many of them did, and losing so many subsidies as a result, which have not been replaced by Governments since then. On top of that, there are food security concerns and the combined effects of rising costs, land consolidation and a reduction of direct payments, all destabilising food production. The UK’s reliance on food imports increases the risk of food insecurity, with the global supply chain disruptors.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for initiating this debate. As has been said before, we produce 60% of our food for consumption but we rely on imports for nearly half of it. However, domestic food production is vulnerable to many factors: climate change; the prices offered by purchasers; high energy costs—in the UK we have some of the highest energy costs in the world; the international supply chain—we saw fertiliser costs shooting up after the Ukraine war started, for example; labour shortages; biodiversity and water quality; and biosecurity and animal health.
The Government say that 73% of APR claims come from estates with qualifying assets worth less than £1 million. But the National Farmers’ Union says that 75% of farmers are affected. Will the Minister clarify why there is a huge difference between what the NFU thinks and what the Government think? They say that the agricultural property relief addresses a loophole, but Alistair Carmichael, chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said:
“Agricultural property relief is not a loophole; it has been a deliberate policy of successive Governments for the past 40 years, designed to avoid the sale and break-up of family farms … These changes will have a ripple effect across the whole rural community.””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 24.]
The NFU has said why it feels that the Government’s assumptions are flawed. It says that there is a failure to adjust for inflation, an unfair inclusion of non-commercial holdings and an underestimation of the tax burden of APR and BPR combined. Does the Minister agree? Further, on the economic impact on working farms, the NFU says that there are unsustainable tax liabilities. It says: “Medium-sized firms will face annual inheritance tax instalments that far exceed their profits”. Of course, it is a fact that farming is asset-rich and cash-poor. On top of that, NFU analysis shows that the £1 million threshold means that cereal farms will see their returns entirely wiped out by their tax liabilities. Dairy farms will lose approximately 50% of their returns to inheritance tax. On top of that, there will be implications for food security, the undermining of domestic food production, the disincentivising of long-term investment and a contraction in available farmland.
I do not know who is advising this Government. When I was president of the CBI, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves had good intentions but, since coming into government, they have upset pensioners, farmers and family businesses. They have upset the business community with a £40 billion tax rise and a £25 billion national insurance rise. They have upset employers with regulations that will make us less competitive, at a cost of £5 billion. The Government rightly want economic growth, but how can we have economic growth if we kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
This country’s farmers are precious; they are the backbone of our country. We need to appreciate our farmers and always be grateful for our farming community.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her eloquent valedictory speech. I have been moved by so many speeches in today’s debate, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, but in particular by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who put her head above the parapet to call her own party to account on the disastrous situation facing family farms and businesses. I declare my interests as a Welsh farmer, as set out in the register.
I want to address these rural economy issues, which go to the very fabric of our communities, and the impact of the Government’s recent Budget proposals. Small farms and family-run enterprises are the lifeblood of many regions in our country. They contribute to the agricultural sector and are pivotal in sustaining local economies, creating jobs and preserving our rural landscapes. However, recent proposals from the Government have put these and many businesses like them under unprecedented strain, threatening their survival and, by extension, the very essence of rural life.
The Budget includes changes to agricultural funding and the ongoing transition away from the common agricultural policy. While the Government have repeatedly assured us that the reforms ensure a fairer and more sustainable future for farmers, there is growing concern that the current pace of change is leaving too many behind.
Moreover, as we have heard today, many farmers are operating on razor-thin margins given the continuing rise in input costs, including of feed, fertiliser and fuel. The Government’s Budget proposals, particularly the lack of direct support for those facing these rising costs, will result in many farms facing the impossible choice of scaling back or closing down entirely. For family farms, this is not just a financial issue; often, generations of history, pride and identity are at risk.
Let us also consider the issue of access to finance. Small farmers and rural entrepreneurs often struggle to access the capital they need to invest in their businesses, particularly in a climate where traditional lending institutions are reluctant to take on risk. We need to stimulate this growth. Without easy access to affordable credit and loans, these businesses cannot expand, innovate or weather the financial storms that inevitably come.
Small farms and family-run businesses are major employers in many rural areas. A reduction in support for these sectors will lead to a loss of local jobs, further exacerbating the rural/urban divide. As larger corporations dominate the marketplace, the social fabric of our rural communities will fray, leading to a rise in economic inequality and a depletion of rural services.
The Government must change course now. I think that we on these Benches always suspected that the mask would slip, but we have just been surprised by how quickly. To any farmers or others in rural communities listening to or watching this debate: the Government do not understand you and they do not care about you. Worse still, they want what is yours—or they want the Deputy Prime Minister to bulldoze it.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this most timely of debates. It is sometimes said that that the two most important responsibilities of any Government are to keep the nation safe and to ensure that the population is fed. I am sorry to say that the previous Conservative Government failed to properly invest in our Armed Forces over the past 14 years, with the consequences now being laid bare in an increasingly dangerous world. I wish the Labour Government well in their efforts to paper over these cracks.
However, the new Government now stand accused of placing their duty to provide proper food supplies for the nation at risk by seeking to implement a tax rise with what I suspect are unintentional consequences. The Chancellor’s decision to propose an inheritance tax on farms worth over £1 million will affect a small minority of families in rural England, Scotland and Wales, and a significant number in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom that is particularly resilient, and reliant on farming. Agriculture provides £6 billion to the local Ulster economy. Given the well-documented problems with the Irish Sea border which the Windsor Framework has created—an agreement negotiated by the previous Government but fully supported by the new crop of Ministers—local farmers’ produce is arguably more important to people in Northern Ireland now than ever before. In light of these plain facts, the Government’s ill-advised—and, it would appear, ill-informed—Budget measure has the potential to decimate the Province’s agriculture sector.
UK Ministers have been wheeling statistics over the past few weeks which they claim indicate that the inheritance tax changes will affect only a tiny proportion of farms. However, earlier this week, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland published the results of its own analysis, which the Minister may or may not be aware of. Either way, I will welcome his response when he winds up the debate.
This analysis, which took into account residential property, farm buildings, machinery, livestock and land, found that around half of the 26,000 farms in Northern Ireland could be impacted by the inheritance tax changes that the Government seem determined to drive through. To put that into perspective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has mentioned, this would account for 80% of farmed land across the province, including 40% to 45% of cattle and sheep farms and around 87% of dairy farms. I pose a simple and straight question to the Minister: based on those official figures from a Northern Ireland executive department, how much damage are this Government prepared to inflict on the Northern Ireland farmers before they accept that they have got this wrong?
Whatever the Chancellor may be trying to achieve, her decisions have badly backfired. Respectfully, I suspect that most in government, particularly those forced to defend the Chancellor’s move, including the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, agree. This Government are still in their early moments of office, and mistakes may inevitably be made while they get to grips with the realities of power. Sadly, the farming tax is one of their biggest mistakes. The correct approach should be to acknowledge the error, scrap the tax and move on. They will get credit for doing so, not least from the beleaguered agricultural community in Northern Ireland.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Suffolk farmer of a certain age. Since the dawn of civilisation, family farming has provided seed for enterprise, food and survival. Yet these retrospective IHT proposals have been widely perceived, not just by Britain’s farmers, as a betrayal of the rural community. In politics, perception is reality. To persist with these proposals could, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, cost Labour 100 seats at the next election.
In any Government, the relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor is crucial, and it can be sensitive. We remember that between Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson, or Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Much depends on the public and political standing of the Chancellor. Five months ago, Rachel Reeves arrived at the Treasury flourishing a sparkling CV that might have even suggested she could be a future Governor of the Bank of England. The media searchlights have now illuminated the realities of her skills and experience, however. She will never again, I suspect, be able to avoid pre-Budget political and economic scrutiny of her plans from her senior colleagues, such as Mr Pat McFadden.
So far, the Chancellor has rejected all requests to reconsider the IHT proposals. I will remind your Lordships of a precedent which, I suggest, could be a way out. It means going back 50 years to the 1974 Budget of Chancellor Denis Healey. This proposed the introduction of an annual wealth tax, something that had been in Harold Wilson’s February manifesto. A Green Paper came out in August 1974, with the promise of a White Paper to follow. There was consequent alarm that the effect on cash flows would force many SMEs out of business. In response, in December 1974 the Commons set up the Select Committee on Wealth Tax. It reported in November 1975 that the Government had failed to recognise
“the special dangers inherent in introducing such a tax at a time of … economic crisis”.
On 29 November 1976, Denis Healey, in a Written Answer said:
“The Government have decided they should not introduce a wealth tax in the life of this Parliament, but the tax will continue to be an important part of their programme”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/1976; col. 49W.]
So it has been for the last 50 years.
Healey related the outcome in his 1989 autobiography, The Time of My Life:
“Another lesson was that you should never commit yourself in Opposition to new taxes unless you have a very good idea how they will operate in practice. We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle”.
If Denis Healey could change his mind, surely the Prime Minister could at least have second thoughts.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I too salute the noble Earl for securing this topical debate. Like others here today, he is an excellent example of this place’s vintage intake of hereditaries in 2021—but I am in danger of straying into yesterday’s debate.
I will focus on family businesses and inheritance tax overall. Given the dire state of our public finances, I acknowledge that this Government had no choice but to raise taxes in the Budget, but it is the way that it was done that troubles me. I have been an outspoken critic and raised a number of questions in this place on the impact of employer national insurance and capital gains tax increases and the minimum wage hike. We now have the troubling issue of inheritance tax and how to levy it in a way that is proportionate and does not unduly damage the economy.
Why should family businesses, and indeed farmers, not share in the burden of inheritance tax like the rest of us, particularly those sitting on valuable assets? It is a perfectly reasonable question. In my own case, I set up and built a business over 30 years, which I sold back in 2014. The sales proceeds first incurred capital gains tax—which, interestingly, thanks to Gordon Brown, had dropped to a much lower rate than under previous Conservative Governments—and, on my death, whenever that will be, a 40% inheritance tax will be applied to virtually all those proceeds, bar £325,000.
This was not a family business; I had no intention of burdening my son or daughter with succession, but that would have been far more tax efficient, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, already noted. It would not have been in the interest of the company, the staff or the shareholders, let alone my children or indeed the wider economy. My point is that family succession can be far from optimal—just look at the Trumps and the Murdochs, for instance. Economies thrive from the trading of assets and changes of ownership.
I accept that, for small family businesses and farms, the situation is more complex, as we have already heard. In my attempt to be a constructive Cross-Bencher, I will propose to the Government three changes. First, they should cap BPR and APR at £2.5 million per person, rather than at £1 million. Secondly, they should apply the 20% inheritance tax rate above that figure up to £5 million. Thirdly, above that figure, they should apply the full 40% rate—the rate that most of us pay from a much lower level. That, in my view, is more measured and proportionate, and would still generate the budgeted tax revenues. It means that the very asset-rich will contribute more—as I think they should. Yes, some may have to sell their businesses or some of their assets, but that is life and how a modern economy should work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate. I join the torrent of tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her many decades of service. She taught me a great deal about working in your Lordships’ House when we were debating the now Medicines and Medical Devices Act. I often used her as an example of one of my favourite hashtags, #CampaigningWorks. I note that the existence of the Patient Safety Commissioner is just one of the contributions for which we should pay tribute to the noble Baroness.
On the topic of today’s debate, I am here to demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the Government’s current plans for inheritance tax on farms across the political spectrum. Some noble Lords have already noted this, but we particularly note the huge toll that the announcement and its subsequent concerns have had on the mental health of many farmers. As the Green Party, we strongly support the idea of cracking down on tax dodging where the purchase of land is being used by individuals who are companies to dodge tax and very often to take it out of farming production, but it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to make a distinction between that use of land and genuine farming businesses.
Taking the constituency of my honourable friend Adrian Ramsay, the MP for Waveney Valley, as an example, the typical farm there is about 320 acres and these holdings may be valued at between £3 million and £5 million. That is the value on paper but very often the income is very low. In the Green Party we believe we need more farmers and to create opportunities for the entry of new people into farming, leading to smaller farms and a bigger range of businesses, not even more consolidation which this tax change could well produce. We also need a great deal of support for the diversification of crops and cropping systems, agroecology and the growing of vegetables and fruit.
Given that many issues have been heavily canvassed in this debate, I will take this opportunity to look forward to the spending review. We have to look at the history of what has been done to Defra over the past 15 years or so. From 2009 to 2019, funding for Defra declined 35% in monetary terms and 45% in real terms. That compared to a cut across the whole of government of 20% on average. There was then an injection of funding as an enormous range of new roles came in with Brexit, but we are now again hearing talk—and talk that the Secretary of State is volunteering for this—of at least a 20% cut in Defra. That means big cuts in spending on nature and flood prevention, which has huge potential impacts on farmers as well as rural communities and broader communities in general.
I have limited time, but I want to throw into this debate the point that we need to rethink how we can ensure that farmers who are growing the food that we need have a secure life and business. We cannot keep relying on other people’s soil, water and labour to feed ourselves as we do so much now. We are seeing a very fast-growing campaign for a universal basic income for farmers and that is an area we should be looking at. We need a Defra department that is able to shape the right policies and a Government that acknowledge the importance of food to all of us and food security, which is, I am afraid, not what we are currently getting.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Leicester for securing the debate and for speaking so eloquently, setting out the difficulties of the Budget proposal. I also add my heartfelt tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who, as the daughter of a GP, has maintained a life-long interest in healthcare. She will be much missed.
My focus today is on the human aspect and the potential social crisis unfolding as a result of the Government’s proposals, in particular what the implications will be for the uplands and tenant farmers. Issues of food security have been recounted in the debate but I recognise that taking land out of production for farming, such as the plans for solar farms on a small scale in Old Malton and on a much greater scale in East Yorkshire—up to four square miles—are just nonsensical. Reducing basic farm payments with a slow uptake of ELMS and the complexity of the SFI on top of the removal of capital grants for those farmers equipping themselves to farm in an environmentally friendly way are deeply regrettable.
What exactly will the impact on tenant farms be? If you look at North Yorkshire, County Durham and many northern counties—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle mentioned Northumbria—48% of farms are tenanted, yet it is deeply unclear how these proposals will apply to them. At the very least, will the Minister, in summing up, commit to issuing draft legislation or the usual tax information and impact note before July next year to ensure that tenants can prepare in the best way possible for these proposals, well in advance of the timescale that the Government are minded to introduce?
Your Lordships will be aware that farmers are fiercely proud, private and independent. They are reluctant even to visit the GP and seek healthcare when they most need it. What I regret most about these Budget proposals is the mood of anxiety, distress and uncertainty that they have created about the future, affecting whole families—not just the adult farmers but their children, who are now displaying signs of mental health issues which need to be addressed. As others have mentioned, this impacts on the whole rural community; farmers are the glue holding it together.
I pay tribute to the farming charities, which are being called on to intervene even more this year—such as RABI, the Farming Community Network, Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, of which I am a patron, and the chaplain to the auction mart at Thirsk, Yvonne Bowling, whom I meet regularly. She is deeply distressed by the hardship caused to the farmers, particularly financially, and she requests urgent action to address this. The Government have not even brought forward greater climate resistance to the farming system nor ensured that productivity does not compromise their farms. Yvonne Bowling says:
“The health issues for our farmers are still serious with many issues, but as chaplains, we continue God’s work listening and walking alongside farmers in their worries and concerns”.
I am deeply grateful that she and others are showing concern for farmers in this way.
Farmers are in a unique and vulnerable position, and the Government seem totally incapable of understanding the uncertainty that they face. I hope that the noble Lord in winding up today will be respectful and mindful of what they are facing at this time.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a Hampshire farm owner.
The Prime Minister, when speaking to the NFU in 2023, pledged to have
“a new relationship with the countryside and farmers”.
He promised to provide certainty and to work with farmers, insisting that
“food security is national security”.
Also, the Defra Secretary Steve Reed, while in opposition, provided multiple reassurances that Labour had no plans to change agricultural property relief. In this speech I will be refuting several government claims to justify the tax change and how they are underestimating its impact on family farms. For this information, I am drawing on briefings from the CLA and NFU. Can the Minister respond to my refutations?
The first claim is that it will affect only a small number of farms. Several bodies and member organisations in the rural sector have independently concluded that this is inaccurate. The CLA estimates that, in its current form, the cap could affect 70,000 farms in the UK over a generation. Significantly, these farms make up 75% of the utilised agricultural area in the UK. This means that, although the cap may not affect the smallest holdings, it has the potential to be immensely damaging to UK food security.
CLA modelling has also found that, for an average arable farm in England, IHT will start applying at 250 acres for a farming couple and 100 acres for a single farmer. With the average farm at around 215 acres, it cannot be claimed that only the largest farms will be affected. This cap will lead to transformational change in the industry over time. The CLA has already heard of numerous examples of rural businesses stopping investment due to these changes.
The next government claim is that most farms will not be affected until they are worth £3 million. It is true that some farming couples will be allowed assets worth up to £3 million before IHT occurs on their farm. However, the £3 million will be available only if both the couple’s nil-rate bands are not used up, and if resident nil-rate relief is available in both cases. Often it is not.
The position also fails to consider the 46% of farms that are owned by single farmers. CLA modelling shows that a typical 200-acre farm owned by an individual with an expected profit of £27,300 would face an IHT liability of £370,000. If spread over a period of 10 years, this would require the farm to allocate 136% of its profit each year to cover the tax bill. To meet this bill, successors could be compelled to sell 16% of their land. For a 250-acre single farmer, the cost would be 151% of their yearly profit for a decade. The fact that these costs are spread over a decade means little to working farms if they are forced to pay over 100% of their yearly profit for each of those 10 years in order to fund their IHT bill.
The next government claim is that, with good succession planning, most farmers will not have to pay IHT. On several occasions, the Government have hinted at this. This misunderstands farming businesses. A major concern is based around rules on gifts with reservation of benefit. In its current form, to avoid IHT, a farmer will have to pass on their land to a successor seven years prior to their death. However, for this transfer to be valid, the farmer cannot take income from the farm or live in their property without paying a market rent for those seven years and after. This is a major concern, as a significant number of farmers do not hold a pension. A recent assessment from Investec wealth management found that 96% of farmers see their farm as their pension, while 46% expect the farm to provide more than 50% of their retirement income. These farmers will not be in a position to succession plan and avoid IHT. In addition, as acknowledged by independent organisations such as the IFS, this policy is unfair to those who will pass on in the next seven years.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity to ask again that Ministers really hear the concerns of farmers through our remarks here today. I found the speeches surprisingly moving, because this topic matters. By the way, I must fangirl the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege: she and her work really matter and she has changed the face of women’s liberation.
It strikes me that Government Ministers seem genuinely to have been taken aback by the despair and fury of thousands of farmers reacting to the Budget’s inheritance tax policy. I thought that, when they saw the backlash, we would find Rachel Reeves and team saying, “Oh, we didn’t mean you. We were targeting”—oh, I do not know—“big agriculture, mega-rich landowners or Jeremy Clarkson types”. But, instead of backing down, Ministers seemed to double down, and, worse, they defensively demonised hard-working farmers and carry on doing so. Those who graft 365 days a year with 5 am starts in all weathers, for often meagre rewards—working people, albeit not public sector employees, so possibly unfamiliar in Westminster bubble circles—are now smeared as tax dodgers who are avoiding paying their dues to society for public services.
I sometimes wonder whether Ministers are getting their insider knowledge of farming from “The Archers”. There has been an interminable political messaging storyline on the virtues of rewilding, which has driven me mad for a while. Yet, in a mere 30-second exchange on this topic recently, David Archer said:
“There’s a lot of anger about this new inheritance tax on farms”,
only for this to be batted away by Leonard, who says:
“But we need those taxes to pay for things like the NHS”.
This is scurrilous propaganda, and actually misinformation.
It is concerning when those who are influential in society seem oblivious to the material reality of working lives. Yesterday, one Labour MP went on the BBC’s “Politics Live” and smirked that it was
“quite hard to find a poor farmer”.
She needs to get out more—she could have even walked out of the Millbank studio and met the drivers of the magnificent 400-plus tractor parade going around Westminster, or she could watch Together’s Alan Miller’s insightful interviews with farmers from all over the country vividly explaining their plight.
As one explained, anyone who says that farmers with assets of over £1 million are rich is someone who does not know that a combine harvester costs over £500,000. One bit of confusion is on what family farms are. Commentators talk as though they are a Downton Abbey-style hereditary dynasty. Instead, I present John Shaw, who farms at Crookdyke. His farm’s history is telling, and a challenge to stereotypes. His father was not a toolmaker, but his great-great-grandfather was a coalminer and his great-grandfather a railway worker. His grandfather left school at 14 and worked as a farm labourer. He was forced to, but he got the bug, so, in 1929, when he married, he took a tenancy of a small farm. Three more tenancies later, he bought the farm that John now owns, which his father worked on from leaving school—as did John and John’s son.
This should be an inspiring story of nearly four generations building up a family farm that supports two families and is at the heart of the local community. However, now that the farm has been valued, John says that after his death, the inheritance tax of £750,000 will be impossible to pay without selling most of the land, with the remaining land being unviable as a farm. It is tragic, wanton and destructive.
So I issue a warning and a plea. We are told in this House that we should look to Europe. Do not stop at the EU when you look to Europe. Look at the European farmers, who have brought down Governments, taken over streets and been involved in a revolt. I want to see our farmers win. I would rather that the Government sat round the table with them before they took to the streets in a destructive way, but they have to resolve this.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, my text for today is “Barley, Not Bulrushes”.
There is nothing more damaging to the fate of a nation than a Government with a huge majority taking massive decisions affecting us all without having the slightest understanding of what they are doing, or perhaps—which is even more frightening—understanding the damage that they are inflicting and being happy if the result is disaster because that suits their long-term ends. In the case of farming, it is this destruction of the independent small to medium-sized family farm, to be swallowed up by huge conglomerate blocs that are much more amenable to government control. Whatever the motive, the result is the same and it simply cannot be allowed to happen.
Our striving to increase food production is as old as time itself, from hunter-gatherers to the sophisticated techniques of today, taking in the great improvements of the 18th and 19th centuries, led famously by, among others, Charles “Turnip” Townsend and Coke of Holkham. The latter would, I feel sure, strongly approve of his descendants’ efforts today.
We have a long and proud history of making every acre capable of food production play its part in feeding the nation. Now, with a population growing at an alarming rate and growing demands not just to feed the people but to improve our lamentable record on self-sufficiency, what are the Government proposing to do? They are proposing to tax thousands of farmers out of existence: the kinds of farmers who not only make maximum use of their acreage but understand and care for our unique and vital countryside and its wildlife in a way that larger units simply cannot do.
Taxing farmers in the way that is proposed is deeply shaming. Labour specifically promised not to do it. Breaking your word on an issue of this kind not only does huge damage to the Government’s reputation, which is really not my concern, but shames every parliamentarian in the eyes of the people. All this to fill an invented and entirely fictional £22 billion black hole, the script for the justification of which every Labour MP has learned by heart and repeats ad nauseam. This is childish and insulting to political opponents and, more importantly, the general public.
The other tragic fiction is the need for net zero and all the dreadful consequences resulting from it. The idea that, to meet some scientifically unsubstantiated target by a rigidly imposed date, we should rewild thousands of acres of fertile farmland and smother vast tracts of land in hideous Chinese-manufactured solar panels, will have all our forebears who dedicated themselves to improving agricultural productivity turning in their graves.
We must support our farmers in this battle, which, for the sake of the nation, they cannot afford to lose. The supermarkets must be made to understand that they cannot go on indefinitely screwing farm prices down. It really is farcical that milk, with all that goes into its production, often costs less than bottled water.
Not so many years ago, the government department responsible for farming was MAFF—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It served farmers very well in many ways. We changed this—heaven knows why—to Defra, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is no mention of farming or fishing. We took our eye off the ball. It is time to get our priorities right and put farming back centre stage where it belongs.
I thank the noble Earl for allowing us the opportunity to set out our thoughts on this vital issue. I urge the Minister, when he responds to the debate, to make it clear to the House and to the country that, when it comes to keeping the nation fed, he understands the difference between barley and bulrushes.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a small landowner and farmer in Northern Ireland. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this important debate forward. I know a number of noble Lords have tried to bring forward similar debates, and I welcome this opportunity. I am interested in the contribution and assessment of the noble Lord who spoke previously. The noble Earl who brought forward the debate went into some detail, and I welcome the assessment and analysis that he carried out in relation to inheritance tax and the APR.
I have to ask the question: what do this Government want from agriculture and farming? Do they want farmers who have the countryside at heart, who want to do the best for the environment, and who want to produce food of good quality and with good environmental standards? Or do they want those smallholdings to be bought up by big institutions and large landowners, with no interest in farming and agriculture, buying produce from countries that do not have the same standards as we do in the United Kingdom? I ask that simply because that is what this is going to be about. If the Government’s intention is to bring about the better movement of farms and land, which other people will have the opportunity to purchase, they are doing exactly the opposite. Instead, they are going to force small family farms, or parts of them, to be sold and bought up by big institutions or people who have no interest in agriculture or producing food for the nation of the United Kingdom.
I heard it mentioned earlier that Northern Ireland punches above its weight. With a small nation, we feed 10 million people. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who indicated that. That is true, and a large number of those people are within Great Britain.
We need to wake up; if we bring about and follow through on this policy, we are going to decimate small, family farms. I am old enough to remember pre-1984, when there was inheritance tax on farms. I saw how that decimated small rural farms in Northern Ireland. Things have changed greatly since then. The value of farms and livestock has increased, and the amount of machinery needed has increased, along with its value. Many more farms will fall into the category that is now required to pay inheritance tax. Is that what we want? Do we want to stop those individuals and farming families who have worked hard?
I remind your Lordships’ House that many farmers go out and tend to their livestock every morning, making sure that they have feed and water, before going back home to for their own food and water. That is the dedication these farmers have. Some of them are up in the middle of the night tending to their animals, and are still up to milk their cows or tend to their livestock in the morning. That is the dedication of this community. It is not just a job or an individual business that has been there for a small number of years; it is a way of life, which contributes significantly to this economy and this community. Let it go at your peril.
I challenge the Government once again: what type of farming community, and what type of produce, food and agriculture, do they want for our society? If they want proper food, produced to good environmental and animal welfare standards, they should not go through with this taxation.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on securing this most topical debate, and on his moving and convincing introductory speech. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her great speech and great contribution to your Lordships’ House over many years.
Farmers deserve compensation for their protection and stewardship of our beautiful countryside, but the Budget has now removed indiscriminately most of the remaining BPS payments and, at the same time, put in jeopardy the long-term viability of many farms with the restrictions placed on APR and BPR. The Government defend their attack on APR by citing the growing number of rich people seeking to avoid inheritance tax by investing in farmland. That may to some extent be true, but surely a solution must be found that closes that loophole while not punishing long-term farmers, many of whom are of advanced years and have reasonably held expectations that they would be able to pass on their farms to the next generation, free of tax. They have done exactly as they have been asked to do by Governments over the past 50 years—to produce food, manage the environment and comply with tax policy. These people have not invested purely to avoid IHT. They are the backbone of the countryside.
Many farms may well now face a cost of over £1 million on death—a bill equivalent to 20 to 30 years of income, or one generation’s worth of income from the land. Farming will rapidly become unviable in this country if we punish farmers in this way. Can the Minister say whether this is really what the Government intended and if he thinks that it is fair?
I understand that the Government want to close the loophole, so should they not restrict APR to exclude mere investors and instead back tenant farmers, allowing both landlord and tenant to invest in the countryside, while the retention of BPR could provide support to genuine farming businesses, suitably qualified, to close any loopholes? Did not the working farmers’ relief scheme, introduced by the then Labour Government in 1976, provide the right solution and form of words?
Farmers should have to qualify for IHT relief. The current qualification for BPR is for at least half the business to be farming. Perhaps the 50% hurdle could be increased a little. Genuine farmers would still get the relief, while those just investing would not qualify.
The new SFI is working, so why, in its first few years, change the underlying rules relating to owning farm assets? Without adjustment, the Government’s proposal to tax farms will mean that holdings which have been built up over many generations will be split up and sold.
The Government should revise their plans. Instead, they should first end holdover relief on premium land sales. That is more palatable and would bring intermediate revenue. Secondly, the Budget measures may, perversely, encourage wealthy individuals to purchase a small farm to avoid IHT, so why not revise the qualification rules to close the loophole? Thirdly, the Government should continue to improve the targeting of subsidies to help farmers most in need, as opposed to the blunt instrument of IHT. Fourthly, they should provide a fair timeframe for those elderly farmers who may not now expect to live seven years from handover.
Finally, let us look at how the Government and farmers can work together to encourage British companies to invest in farming and the environment, ultimately satisfying ESG and carbon-reduction requirements. I trust the Minister will agree that it is enormously important to avoid an outcome where small farms and parcels of land have to be sold in order to pay tax bills. I look forward to hearing other contributions and the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this debate at such an appropriate time, with so many farmers feeling the need to demonstrate outside this House yesterday and a few weeks ago. The small farmers and family farmers of this country are feeling betrayed, unwanted and targeted. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on his moving speech describing the farming community.
The recent Budget has sent shockwaves through the industry as lifelong plans for farming business have been turned upside down. The next three years see three added burdens. The unexpected announcement of the delinking of basic payment scheme payments was disappointing, as it was a direct subsidy to farmers. A family farm that received £19,000 this year would have expected £14,000 next year, but now that has been capped at £7,200.
In 2026 we will see the introduction of the of the APR and BPR capping. While the change is understandable to close an IHT loophole for large individual investor landowners, the new limit of £1 million is far too low and adds large IHT bills to many productive family farms.
I repeat the comment by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that in 2027 another increase to the cost base of farms will be the interest reduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism—or, as it is known to farmers, the fertiliser tax—which is anticipated to add £50 per tonne to nitrogen fertiliser, and a typical 400 acre or 500 acre farm uses about 60 tonnes a year.
There has been much debate on the figure that the Treasury has used for the number of farmers who will be affected. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers has stated that 73 farmers was a perfectly accurate figure but was entirely uninformative. A farm is made up of not just agricultural land but machinery, livestock, deadstock, corn in the store and many other assets. Has the Treasury looked into the number of farming estates in the past few years that have claimed BPR as well as APR? That would be much more reflective of the working farms to be affected.
The CAAV issued a discussion paper in November, a detailed document taking into account the many different factors regarding the farming business. It acknowledges that it has made certain assumptions, but its conclusion was that the measure would affect 60,000 producing farms over the next 30 years, which is a generational change period. On average, that is 2,000 farms per year, which is 1,500 more than the Treasury thinks. That is why the farming community is fearful of this change.
I will not report the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, from the CLA, but they make stark reading for the rural community. For those farming business owners who can plan for the future, there is definitely mitigating action to be taken, which is welcome, but the risk from April 2026 is that, for those farms that have planned on the basis of APR relief and are relying on their farms to provide for their retirement, there is no time to change so they will suffer greatly. I again ask the Minister, as I did in the Budget debate: please could the Treasury do an impact assessment of these changes and engage with professional bodies within the agricultural sector, such as the CAAV and special agricultural accountancy firms, to provide a broader depth of the figures to the sector? I would also support the suggestion made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, as a possible solution.
The farming industry welcomes the additional funding announcements this week, but accessing environmental support is complex, not easy, as other Peers have stated. Farmers want a decent price for the products they produce so they can make a living that is above the minimum wage and can have spare funds to invest in their long-term future.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Leicester for bringing forward this important debate. I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.
The lack of any engagement or consultation with those impacted by the Chancellor’s APR and BPR Budget announcement leads to the conclusion that the Treasury either does not value the opinion of those it has impacted, or that it understood the impact and simply does not care. I am not sure which is worse.
I sense that the Minister is on unfamiliar ground when dealing with the detail of family farms and farming matters generally. I notice that, with one single exception, he is not overwhelmingly supported by his Back-Benchers today. So I hope that today’s debate will help the Minister to understand why farmers and small family businesses the length and breadth of the country are so angry. They are angry because they feel that they have been lied to and deceived by this Labour Government.
The Prime Minister said that he understood farming and promised not to interfere with APR and BPR—and yet he has. The Chancellor said that Labour’s new tax will impact only very few, but this is not true. Both the NFU’s and Defra’s own statistics contradict the Treasury estimates, and I suspect that they have a much better understanding of this matter.
The Secretary of State for Defra has insulted farmers by saying, “Look at the small print; you’ll all be fine”. Well, they have, and it is not fine. There are numerous reasons why removing APR and BPR constitutes a disaster for farming and the business community. Many of these reasons have been articulated in the press by the NFU, the farming community and small businesses across the country, and by noble Lords in this debate.
Clearly, the Government have misunderstood both the scale and impact of reducing APR and BPR and, most importantly, the consequences of this disastrous new tax for working farmers and small businesses. By taxing farmers and small businesses so that they are unable to pass on their farms or businesses to future generations of their family, this Government are striking at the very heart of our rural communities.
Not only will it rapidly accelerate the disintegration of family farms and businesses and the subsequent speeding up of the corporate ownership of our countryside; it puts at risk the very fragile web that holds our rural communities together. The obvious and most widely understood casualties will be reduced measures to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, the loss of public access to the countryside and, critically, reduced UK food security. These are really important points—in addition to the numerous small businesses that will simply close or reduce in scale and profitability.
There are other more subtle but equally disruptive outcomes: the unravelling of rural schools; village shops closing; fewer farmers’ markets and less local produce; fewer varieties of heritage crops and livestock; and the loss of key skills such as drystone walling, fencing and hedge laying. Crucially, as has been mentioned many times in this debate, it will impact farmers’ mental health and well-being, which has been a growing area of concern for some time.
If the Minister now understands why these changes have caused so much anguish to so many farmers, can he tell us why there was no consultation in advance of their being announced and explain what additional support the Government can offer to those who are struggling to make sense of them?
Finally, can the Minister give us a proper explanation for this devastating attack on working farmers and small businesses, and not regurgitate the rather tired £22 billion black hole excuse or parrot that there are a few rich people who were getting away with it? Punishing a critical sector of our society and disabling our rural economy deserves a more thorough explanation than this soundbite.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this important debate and on his knowledgeable and thorough introduction. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her valedictory speech. She will be greatly missed in this Chamber.
Ministers have given reassurances that small farms will be unaffected. Sadly, there is something of a misunderstanding of just what constitutes a small farm. The cost of land has a distorting influence. A small farm of 100 acres could be valued at £1 million but, as your Lordships and farmers will know, you cannot make a living out of 100 acres. The minimum size for a farm to be able to support the farmer is about 240 acres, and even then it would be a struggle. Farmers at the lower end of the size range are capital rich but income poor.
While the legislation was intended to target the rich, who may not be farmers and have used farmland as a tax dodge, the new tax legislation will have a far greater impact. The new threshold for inheritance tax includes both APR and BPR, combining the value of land, machinery, buildings and other assets. Many family farms, even modest operations, could exceed the £1 million threshold in assets, leaving up to 66% of farms facing higher tax bills.
Those following nature-friendly farming principles have found this a bitter pill to swallow when they have faced so many pressures in recent years, including seeing their profits dwindle as suppliers and retailers extract value from the food system. While supermarkets continue to post profits year after year, farmers can be left with less than 1% profit from the food they produce. The Government are allowing farmers 10 years to pay their IHT on an interest-free loan. Banks will not lend for investment while there is a loan against the farm. In many cases, the yearly IHT payment will be more than the income generated from the farm. This will lead to selling off the land. The APR changes will have a significant disruptive effect in the land market. These disruptive effects will affect even tenants, who are not directly affected by the APR.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has said, this is not the only pressure facing farmers and their cash flow. There are the NI changes, the speeding up of the BPS transition, border adjustment taxes on fertiliser, tax changes on pick-ups et cetera. All this is having an effect on the morale of farmers. We have heard little about the impact of these pressures, as it is all being lost in the noise around APR. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich referred to the mental state of farmers.
Unfortunately, in some cases APR has been used by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. This is the driver for the Government announcing their plans to reform APR. Their view is that it is not fair for a small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief, when this money could be better used to fund public services. That may be a reasonable argument for large farmers and landowners, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, but why penalise the small family farm? Food production and biodiversity schemes could suffer as a result. The NFU view, which I share, is that the Government do not understand that family farms are not only small farms. Just because a farm is a valuable asset, it does not mean that those who work it are wealthy. Every penny the Chancellor saves from this introduction will come directly from the next generation having to break up their family farm.
An Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis has said that the policy could be tweaked. For example, farmers passing away in the next seven years will not have had the opportunity to avoid inheritance tax by making lifetime gifts. The policy could therefore be brought in more slowly, or gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date could be inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death. Other noble Lords have raised this issue.
The Government might also consider raising the threshold for the introduction of APR from £1 million to £3 million—the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave a higher figure. My colleague in the other place, Alistair Carmichael—and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester —said:
“Agricultural property relief is not a loophole; it has been a deliberate policy of successive Governments for the past 40 years, designed to avoid the sale and break-up of family farms … These changes will have a ripple effect across the whole rural community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 24.]
The current price paid to farmers for food is at rock bottom. Some supermarkets squeeze producers beyond what is feasible. The price paid by consumers bears little relationship to the cost to the farmer of growing the crop or rearing the stock. Despite what the Government might think, very few small farmers own tractors of the size and scale that television viewers see on Jeremy Clarkson’s programme. The media concentration on this television programme has led to a total misrepresentation of the role of the small family farmer.
In addition, the CLA rejects the Government’s claim that this move will not affect family farms. Its modelling highlights how a couple who own an average 350-acre English arable farm would have to spend 99% of their yearly profit over a decade to afford their inheritance tax bill. More starkly, a single farmer with 200 acres would have to pay 136% of their yearly profit to cover the bill.
Outside APR, the plight of farmers is also hit by the unexpected cut to delinked BPS payments. The current payments should have been 15% to 20%, which was 76% of the first basic payment, but that is now down to £7,000. The previous predicted basic payment this year would have paid the rent of a tenant farmer, but it will not do so now. The CLA believes that the announced cap would affect 70,000 farms, which is 75% of utilised agricultural area in the UK. This will be damaging to food security—the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to this.
As we approach Christmas, spare a thought for the farmer who gets up in the dark to feed and tend their stock, all while children are opening their stockings. It is right that the wealthy farmers and landowners should pay inheritance tax, but the effect on the smaller family farm has been misjudged. I ask the Minister and his Treasury colleagues to think again.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as the owner of a dairy farming business, commercially managed forestry and let agricultural property, and as a shareholder in Agricarbon and John Deere. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Leicester for securing this vital debate on these highly unpopular Budget proposals. It allows the Government to reflect on whether they are wise or appropriate.
I very much enjoyed my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s valedictory speech, bringing an end to a remarkable 34 years in this House. It is clear that the House has been lucky to have my noble friend as a Member and is very grateful for her dedication to healthcare, and women’s healthcare in particular.
It is widely reported and understood that this was a business-unfriendly Budget, with the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions the biggest hit to business. However, I want to spend my time in this debate addressing inheritance tax reliefs. This was a disastrous Budget for family businesses. The reduction in APR and BPR inheritance tax relief to 50% of the value of estates in excess of £1 million will destroy existing long-term plans for those businesses. According to Oxford Economics, family businesses employ 14 million people; they are already responsible for £225 billion per annum in tax, according to PwC. Given that most of our largest businesses began as family-owned companies, I ask the Minister how this tax can be anything but negative for our economic growth outlook.
Beyond that, this tax is cruel as it falls unexpectedly on those who are now nearing the end of their lives and have no ability to mitigate or plan around it. It also falls on those who die young through accident or illness. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have already mentioned, what do the Government expect the most elderly and infirm to consider to avoid the inheritance tax burden on the next generation as the tax deadline nears?
In a Written Answer to my question on whether the Government planned
“to keep monthly data on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides”,
the Government answered that
“the ONS is committed to continuing its quarterly publication of suicide statistics and analysing suicide deaths by occupation using annual data … a more regular presentation of suicide deaths by occupation is not planned”.
Given that the Government have just created an incentive for such individual tragedies, I think this House might feel that they should at least measure its outcome. I ask the Minister to commit that the Government will gather and publish monthly statistics on suicide rates by those potentially impacted by these taxes in the run-up to their introduction on 6 April 2026.
Members of His Majesty’s Government have suggested that this can be avoided by passing assets to the younger generation more than seven years before dying, relying on the potentially exempt transaction rule. Who in this House knows when they are going to die? Should this tax be paid only by the children of those farmers or business owners who have suffered a fatal accident or succumbed to a sudden illness?
The Government have claimed that only 500 farms will be affected in 2026-27—equivalent still to over 10,000 farms in total with this guillotine hanging over them. However, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers calculates that 75,000 farms will be impacted and the NFU, 75% of commercial farms. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, citing 50% of Northern Irish farms also being caught.
The Government have failed to take into account the 14,000 tenant farms, many of which have over £1 million of business property, or the vast number of farms that are in companies or partnerships, which also qualify for BPR only. Can the Minister explain whether this is indeed the case and makes the claim of 500 farms incorrect? It would appear in recent answers to my Written Questions that this claim has been modified to 520 estates claiming APR that will be affected. Could it be that the real answer is that many times as many as this number of farms will be affected, as every organisation well informed on this sector claims?
On tenant farmers, I would add that the loss of 50% APR will incentivise private landlords to dispose of their land rather than let it out. Rental yields are typically less than 2% before tax, making the payment of IHT completely unaffordable. Surely it is not the wish of the Government to restrict the opportunities for those wishing to rent farmland. Around two-thirds of working farmers rent some or all of their farm’s land, according to the NFU.
While family businesses outside farming may be better placed through lower capital intensity to pay this death tax, many, if not most, will be structured as companies, with the tax paid from dividends. The cost on those companies being transferred from one generation to the next will incur a full inheritance tax rate of around 50%, as tax on dividends will also be levied prior to HMRC getting its money.
As my noble friend Lord Leicester also mentioned, family businesses compete against foreign-owned, publicly owned and institutionally owned companies that will not face this death tax. For family-owned companies, investment in new products and services, in more efficient equipment and in expansion becomes crippled by this new cost of doing business that is not borne by their competitors. Markets are fiercely competitive and small cost or technology advantages can mean the difference between thriving and dying. In a post-Budget survey, CBI Economics found that 56% of family businesses planned to reduce investment and 32% to reduce employment. That does not bode well for the competitiveness of family companies.
The figures, explained so well by my noble friend Lord Leicester, show that family farms have no prospect of paying this death tax out of income, which in turn means either taking on debt or selling off assets. Both further cripple those farms by either high annual interest and capital repayments or reduction in scale. On the payment data that my noble friend gave as an example, it is likely that family farms will not have paid off the debt for one inheritance tax bill before another one comes along. This is why 13,000 farmers protested in Whitehall recently and why we saw more than 600 tractors driven in Parliament Square yesterday. This is an attack on a way of life and farmers are in despair.
In answer to an Oral Question on 2 December, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said that
“the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further”.—[Official Report, 2/12/24; col. 912.]
Does this mean that the Government are still consulting on these Budget proposals?
I hope that this debate has explained to the Minister that the reduction of IHT reliefs for agricultural and business assets could lead to a loss of £9.4 billion of economic output, a loss of 125,000 jobs and a net cost to the Treasury of £1.3 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30, all according to CBI Economics, while bringing misery to many, as it will largely be a tax on unexpected tragedy, if business owners follow the Government’s tax advice. Noble Lords have highlighted so many other negative impacts—on rural communities, land stewardship, food security and nature restoration. That leaves the only remaining justification for this policy to be ideology, or perhaps a mistake. I hope that the Government are big enough to concede that this was a mistake that they will reverse or heavily revise. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on his opening speech. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, following her valedictory speech. Throughout her many years in this House the noble Baroness has been an important and influential voice, on the issue of healthcare in particular. I wish her well for the future.
I have listened closely to the words of all noble Lords throughout this debate, and I of course acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed today. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that our farmers make, not only to our economy and to our food security but to our way of life. The Government are deeply committed to supporting them and our rural communities. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich observed, I know that many in the sector are anxious about what the changes announced in the Budget mean for them. In the time I have available, I shall set out some facts and seek to provide some reassurance about the impact of the measures we are introducing.
Let me first, though, remind your Lordships’ House about the economic context in which the Budget decisions were taken. As noble Lords will know, the Government faced an incredibly challenging fiscal position, with a need to both repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. We believe that economic stability is the foundation of economic growth and that stability in the public finances is a core part of that, so ignoring or postponing difficult decisions was simply not an option.
Many noble Lords have spoken in today’s debate about the fragile state of the rural economy, and they are of course right. Problems including poor public transport, a lack of affordable housing and poor digital connectivity have plagued rural communities for years. That is why fixing the foundations of our economy for the long term is so important, so we can invest in the public services and the infrastructure that will benefit the whole of our country.
Among the many difficult decisions that we had to take in the Budget, much of this debate has focused on the reforms that we are making to agricultural property relief and business property relief. I recognise that inheritance tax is an emotive issue. It is an understandable and natural desire for people to want to pass on the assets they worked hard for to the people they love when they die, and the Government recognise the role that these reliefs play in supporting farms and small businesses. Importantly, they will continue to play that role, but the reality is that the full, unlimited exemption, introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable.
The main issue is one of fairness. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.
It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances.
A secondary issue relates to the purchase of farmland. The reality today is that buying agricultural land is now one of the most well-known ways to shield wealth from inheritance tax. This has artificially inflated the price of farmland, locking younger farmers out of the market. Clearly, this was not the objective of this 100% relief when it was first introduced in 1992.
For the reasons that I have set out, the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for estates, including farms and businesses, while supporting the public finances in a fair way.
Many different numbers were used in today’s debate, so let me set out some of the facts. Under the new system, individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above this amount, there will be 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.
Up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected as a result of these changes in 2026-27. Therefore, nearly three-quarters of estates making claims in that period will not pay any more tax as a result of this change in the year it is introduced. Similarly, around three-quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone in 2026-27 will not pay any more inheritance tax either.
Indeed, all estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer in the first year. The reliefs also sit on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets without paying any inheritance tax.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, spoke about the longer-term projections for this tax change. However, forecasts for the impact of these changes over a long period are unreliable, as estates will make changes to the way they plan their tax affairs in order to reduce their liabilities. For example, they may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently.
After these reforms are implemented, the system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will leave farmland
“much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.
Importantly, however, people can also access existing features of the inheritance tax system. Full exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners will continue to apply, meaning that any agricultural and business assets left to a spouse or civil partner will be completely tax free.
Any inheritance tax liability on relevant assets can be paid in 10 annual instalments in most circumstances and will be interest free. These payment terms are more generous than in any other part of the tax system. If owners pass on their businesses seven or more years before their death, no inheritance tax will be due. Taper relief will also apply within that time. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked about taking an income in these circumstances; there are several ways in which this would still be possible.
The changes will not be introduced until April 2026, giving farmers time to plan and assess their liabilities. As the changes are implemented, we expect estates to reduce their tax liabilities. For example, individuals may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently. The costings by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility take full account of this and assume that it will occur.
At this point, I would like to directly address some of the misinformation that has surrounded this issue. Much of this has focused on the data used to determine how many estates will be affected, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Shephard of Northwold and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Rogan, Lord Northbrook, Lord de Clifford and Lord Douglas-Miller. I encourage all noble Lords who have not yet seen it to review the letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Select Committee in the other place setting out the facts in this regard, copies of which are available in the Library.
It is important that we avoid causing unnecessary concern to farmers and farming communities. The data the Government use is based on HMRC’s inheritance tax claims data—that is to say, the actual claims made by estates for agricultural and business property relief. This is the most robust data there is and is endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Some noble Lords have referred to data published regularly by Defra, data from the Northern Ireland Executive and from other organisations and have used this to claim that the number of estates affected will actually be far higher. However, this data relates to the total value of farms across the country. It is impossible to accurately calculate inheritance tax liability from this data because owning assets over the exemption threshold does not necessarily mean you will pay inheritance tax on those assets. This is because such data does not account for key factors such as who owns the farm or the nature of that ownership, how many people own the farm and how they plan their affairs. It also assumes no succession planning over the coming years.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord de Clifford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about assessments made of this tax change. The Government set out their modelling at the Budget and more recently the Chancellor provided further details to the Treasury Select Committee, including in her follow-up letter. As is standard practice, we will publish a tax information and impact note in the usual way alongside the draft legislation next year.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, asked what steps the Government have taken to consult on these measures. Alongside routine engagement, the Government received Budget representations from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association which covered this specific issue. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders in the industry as we implement this change.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, also raised concerns around mental health among farmers and in rural communities. Mental health is of course an issue that the Government take extremely seriously, which is why we are working to improve mental health services across the country, including through plans to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers. Defra also works through its farming and countryside programme with a range of farming charities, including the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution and the Yellow Wellies charity, which have highlighted mental health challenges for farming communities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked if the Government will consider dispensation for farmers above a certain age. The Government remain committed to the changes as set out in the Budget, but clearly individual circumstances will vary. Therefore, any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should consult an accountant or financial adviser.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about the level of the threshold. The Government’s position remains that our approach gets the balance right between supporting farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of wider support to farmers and rural communities. The changes we are introducing should of course be seen in this wider context. The Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including being the biggest Budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter, and we are protecting farms and rural businesses by committing £2.4 billion over the next two years to rebuild crumbling flood defences.
We will also continue to provide existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. This includes, for example, the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, and the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, spoke about food security. That is an issue we approach with the utmost seriousness. It is why we have committed £5 billion to the farming sector over this year and next to support long-term food security. As the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024 published yesterday showed, our food security has been resilient in the face of a number of shocks over the last three years.
The Government recognise that a small minority of estates will be affected by these changes, but reform of these reliefs is necessary given the fiscal challenge that confronts us. We must put our economy back on to a stable footing and repair our broken public services. That includes the schools, hospitals and roads which communities across the country, including those in rural areas, rely on every day. We have taken this decision in a way which makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable, and it is set against the backdrop of significant new investment for farming as well as support for small businesses. Again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, first I must apologise for not mentioning earlier my interests as laid out in the register. They include land ownership in Norfolk, let land, my own farming interests and managing arguably the most important national nature reserve in the land at Holkham.
This has been an excellent debate, with many excellent points made by noble Lords from all sides. I thank all Peers who have contributed. I started writing down everybody’s name, but it was pointless because everybody’s contribution has been incredibly meaningful, emotional and well researched. There were certain noble Lords who could not participate today, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Fuller, and those who were scratched. Other noble Lords were unable to speak on such a controversial topic by virtue of the committees they chair. It is only controversial because this Government made it so by producing such a venal Budget.
I thank noble Lords from the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Cross Benches and the Bishops for taking such an interest in this Bill. It must be very embarrassing that the Government had only one Member of their Back Benches speaking on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—and she was speaking on our side of the argument. It is a great shame, and just demonstrates that this Government do not really seem to care about this issue. I feel sorry for the Minister having to read out that brief, parrot-fashion. He should credit Members of this House with some intelligence; we all spoke in this debate because we know something about it.
Unfortunately, this tin-eared Government have yet again demonstrated their lack of understanding of wealth creation other than through what is arguably their only understanding of it: the short-term and inevitably short-lived medium of taxation. With not a single Cabinet Minister having any real-world business experience of wealth creation, how could they? Before the general election, without exception, every single candidate for their top-100 target seats came from the public sector. Together, they have trumpeted the same old socialist mantra of misconceived wealth redistribution. With this Budget, they have completely missed their target.
The Minister was wise enough not to mention the £22 billion black hole. How we in this House are getting bored with it, as are the public. Last week, I discussed this very matter with the right honourable Jeremy Hunt. He, and we on these Benches, have rubbished that figure, and the OBR has stepped back from it. I hate to have to inform the Minister, but frankly the voters no longer believe it either. As the oldest democracy in the world, we are lucky enough to have a very sophisticated electorate. They can clearly see that the so-called black hole was entirely of Labour’s own making. They created it when they gave their chums in the unions—the train drivers and the junior doctors—huge pay rises without negotiating any change in their terms and conditions.
This Budget was sadly put together with no impact assessment, no consultation with Defra, no idea of how much revenue it would generate, and certainly no consideration whatever for the damage, and in many cases the destruction, it will cause to hundreds, maybe thousands, of small family farms and businesses.
We always hear this Government and their acolytes decrying the far right for rioting and for questioning or criticising the perceived wisdom of the intellectual elite and its progressive policies—and now, increasingly, for thought crime. Let us see it as it is: this is not a Labour Government; this is a far-left Government. History records that the far left has been far crueller and always does far more damage to its subjects, particularly its agrarian population, in its vainglorious pursuit of misplaced ideology. It is straight out of the World Economic Forum’s playbook: “In the future, you will own nothing and be happy”.
Syria
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.
The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.
I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?
Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?
Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?
There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.
In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions.
I start by making the following correction to my intervention to this House last week, during questions on a Statement on Syria. In response to questions from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I stated:
“We gave an additional £4 million to the United Nations in October”.—[Official Report, 3/12/24; col. 1108.]
I would like to correct the record to reflect that we gave an additional £3 million funding on 23 October to humanitarian partners providing life-saving emergency assistance and healthcare to the most vulnerable people fleeing from the Lebanon conflict into Syria and the communities that host them. Of the £3 million in funding, £2 million had been allocated to the UN OCHA-led Syria Humanitarian Fund, with £500,000 given to both the International Medical Corps UK and the UNFPA.
I also point out that, as both noble Lords said, these events in Syria are extraordinary. We are monitoring them very closely and are co-ordinating with our international partners and our many Syrian contacts. We reiterate the importance of protecting civilians, including minorities, as the noble Baroness said, and of moving quickly to an inclusive political transition. As the UN Secretary-General said:
“The future of Syria is a matter for Syrians to determine”.
Assad, with support from Russia and Iran, has committed brutal atrocities against his own people for the last 13 years. As the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said, both the Opposition and the Government made it very clear that we would not tolerate that. The Syrian people suffered too long under his cruel tyranny, and they deserve a brighter future.
We have been at the forefront of the response to this fast-moving situation, speaking regularly to regional and other partners about the situation. As the Foreign Secretary said, he has spoken to the UN Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria and a number of regional counterparts, and my honourable friend Hamish Falconer, the Minister for the Middle East, has also discussed developments in Syria with regional partners and Syrian civil society actors. I am unable to give specific details about that because obviously these circumstances are changing quickly, but the UK special representative for Syria continues to engage with regional partners, including Turkey, which is a vital component to ensuring that we have a fair transition to democracy.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, that the vast majority of Syrians were fleeing the Assad regime. We do not know what will replace it at the moment, so there is no way of judging an asylum claim and whether it is safe for someone to return. We will keep all country guidance relating to asylum claims under constant review so that we can respond to emerging issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right: we have seen how, with Russia’s military support, the Assad regime was able to continue its brutal campaign against the Syrian people for 13 years, and that included horrendous crimes. It comes as no surprise that Putin, himself indicted by the ICC for suspected war crimes, has elected to give sanctuary to Assad. The UK has long condemned Iran’s reckless and destabilising activity, which puts at risk the security and prosperity of the region.
In terms of accountability and justice, UK-funded partners have played a pivotal role in developing a credible evidence base to record atrocities committed in Syria. We continue to provide extensive support to our UK ISF partners and have committed a total of £1.15 million ODA towards accountability and documentation-related programmes in the financial year 2024-25. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that people are held to account for their crimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the humanitarian response. On 9 December, the Prime Minister announced an additional £11 million of humanitarian aid for the Syrian people. That is an additional amount. This has helped the UN and NGOs meet the needs of the most vulnerable across the country, including the more than 1 million people estimated to have been displaced by recent events. Of course, on 6 December, we announced an additional £300,000 in funding to the White Helmets, to which she referred, to facilitate humanitarian access, allow the expansion of its existing ambulance system and enable the safe removal of unexploded weapons.
We call on all parties to support humanitarian access, including for humanitarian workers, in all regions of Syria, and we are working closely with humanitarian and other partners to get a fuller picture of the situation, assess the impacts and needs, and determine how best to respond. We are constantly monitoring the situation.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that noble Lords have asked about, but of course we have opportunities for Back-Bench questions.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister a little more about how this £11 million in extra aid will be spent? He mentioned the use of the UN and other NGOs, but I wonder whether there have been any preliminary contacts with HTS and, if not, when these might take place, to discuss how aid should be distributed but also to try to establish a little more about its intentions and assess whether they are entirely benign, which I hope they will be.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, the situation is fast moving, and we are keeping it under constant review. HTS is a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom, having been added as an alias of al-Qaeda in 2017. I say very clearly that we will judge HTS by its actions and continue to monitor closely how it and other parties to this conflict treat all civilians in areas that it controls. The Government do not routinely comment on whether a group is being considered for proscription or deproscription, but I stress that we are keeping the matter under constant review and will be making judgments based on actions, not just on the original position.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, although Governments might learn a lot about not establishing red lines in other countries where we then breach them, which we have done with Putin and, particularly, in Syria with chemical weapons, it is clearly too early to know how Russia will respond to this. We know that it has withdrawn some of its naval fleet, but we do not know what the immediate future holds in Putin’s mind. These are early days—I am glad to hear in the Statement that asylum claims have been suspended, as it were, for the time being—but can the Minister give any guarantee that nobody will be returned to Syria before we are clearer about what they might be going back to, especially if they belong to a minority, and that proper hearings will still be held so that justice is done for some very vulnerable people?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me make it clear to the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office has temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation. The vast majority were fleeing the Assad regime, but we do not know what will replace it at the moment, so there is no way of judging an asylum claim and whether it is safe for someone to return. That is why we have paused the decisions. We have not stopped the process; applications are being considered. But we will keep all country guidance relating to asylum claims under constant review so that we can respond to emerging issues.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said about proscription or de-proscription. However, as someone from a Muslim background who has, alas, too much familiarity with the travails of the Middle East over decades, can I urge the Minister, in making those judgments, to disaggregate between terrorism and Islamism? We know that HTS now proclaims to be Islamist rather than belonging to the terrorist family from which it came, but it is profoundly important in making these judgments to be clear that Syria is not going to turn into a secular liberal democracy overnight—it would be the first Muslim country in the Middle East to do so if it did—but will require engagement in the longer term. That engagement must be based not on religious grounds but on clear security grounds.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The important thing to stress, as I said earlier, reflecting the Secretary-General’s comments, is that it is for the Syrians to determine their own Government. Turning to HTS, it is important to repeat that we will judge HTS by its actions and continue to monitor closely how it and other parties in this conflict treat all civilians in all areas under their control. As the US special envoy said, we want an inclusive transition process and that is something that we will be monitoring extremely closely.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the threat that those being kept in the al-Hawl camp in northern Syria might present to the United Kingdom were the camp is to be disbanded? What consideration has been given to discussions with the new authorities and with our allies about the future of that camp?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To be honest, I have not got a specific answer on that. In terms of speaking to all our allies, we are looking to ensure the protection of all civilians in all parts of Syria. I will inquire in more detail about the current situation and return to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given that we no longer have an embassy in Damascus—although I feel sure that British embassies in neighbouring countries are being very helpful in this present situation—the main voice and the main channel of communication is the BBC and other brave journalists. Can the Minister comment on the role of the BBC and the relationship that the Government are trying to build on that base?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many debates in this House about the role of the BBC, and in particular the World Service. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it can continue to function. The important thing about the BBC is its independence. It is a reliable voice. It is not for me to comment on it. We must ensure that it is able to continue broadcasting that reliable and truthful voice. All our actions in Syria are through NGOs and other civilian groups. We will continue to support them in humanitarian ways and in other ways; it is an inclusive process that we want to ensure for the future of Syria.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for the Statement. Among regional partners, he identified Turkey. What exchanges are taking place with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who is involved in going to Turkey to discuss in Ankara the clashes between US forces in northern Syria and Turkish-backed rebels?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Both the Foreign Secretary and Minister Falconer have been trying to ensure the de-escalation of any potential conflicts. We want to see a process of transition that is inclusive. That is what Secretary of State Blinken is ensuring, that is what his discussions are doing and that is what Minister Falconer is trying to do. We are in a very fast-changing situation, but it needs calm heads to stay above it.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the tone of the Minister’s Statement in another place and of the Front-Bench spokesman today. I do not envy him the decisions that are coming in the next few days. Will the Minister assure us that, if things go wrong, and HTS turns out to be not as friendly as their first statements appear, we will be ready to pivot to look after that community? A third of the population of Old Damascus is Christian, and there will be Alawites and other Sunnis. It will need real resource from the Government to respond quickly to what might be a completely new challenge. I hope not, but they need to be prepared.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not want to be repetitive, but we are monitoring the situation and keeping it under review. We are judging HTS by its actions, and so far we are hopeful for a positive, inclusive, peaceful transition. Reflecting the point of view of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, all our efforts over the last 14 years have been to support civilian groups and we will continue to do that. Protection of civilians is a vital part of our strategy on Syria.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, I am addressing events particularly in the north-east of Syria. There are reliable reports coming out that Turkish-backed militias known as the Syrian National Army are attacking the Syrian Democratic Forces across the region in central Syria and in the north-east autonomous self-governing region known as Rojava. There are reliable reports of Turkish aircraft and drones hitting Kobani and the capital, Qamishli. Does that reflect the Minister’s understanding of what is happening there? Has he seen some of the horrendous social media footage that is emerging from that area? What are the Government doing in diplomatic and humanitarian terms to address this situation? I should, perhaps for transparency, declare that I met with representatives from Rojava in Ankara in 2016.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have not seen social media, but I think that the important thing is that we act based on the evidence presented to us. We have been focused, in terms of north-east Syria, on the battle against Daesh, and we will continue to focus on protecting the safety and security of all UK citizens, particularly in that area.
As the present situation unfolds in Syria, we are working closely with all partners to monitor the threat, as part of the global coalition against Daesh and other terrorist threats. I do not want to go into any more specific details except to keep repeating that we are working closely with all allies to focus on what needs to be an inclusive transition. At the moment, we are continuing to judge HTS on its actions and not simply on what others are saying.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, approximately five years ago the media made us aware that there are children who are British citizens by descent in north-eastern Syria. It took a while, after meeting with Government Ministers, for their families—their relatives here—to realise that the appropriate jurisdiction was to make them wards under the family court. Decisions were made about whether to bring them to the UK. It is reported today that about 65 British-linked people have already been identified. Can His Majesty’s Government ensure that those who went out there as older teenagers or as adults are not grouped together with children who were born and raised out there but who are British citizens by descent? Their families here need to know they exist in order to exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court here so that decisions can be made about whether they come here. Are His Majesty’s Government making sure that those children are identified, if they are out there?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat the point that I made: it is a focus of our activity, particularly in north-east Syria. The safety and security of the UK and its citizens remain a top priority for the Government. We will do whatever we can to protect UK citizens, but I will not go into the details about how that is achieved. I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad that His Majesty’s Government have already given £11 million towards humanitarian aid. That is such good news. Secondly, our watchword surely should be that old adage: loose lips sink ships. We have to be extremely careful what we say. The material at the moment is very delicate. I encourage the Minister not only to judge and watch what the new Government are doing but to find ways of communicating a slightly more positive view of engagement. Somehow, in a very clever way, we have to become participants.
Finally, we all are concerned about biological and chemical weapons. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking, together with all our partners, to work hard with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the convention? If those weapons get into the wrong hands, or the new Government think, “We’d better keep them, in order that we may use them”, that would be pretty dangerous. What steps will the Government take to make sure this is handled delicately and quickly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The best thing I can do is reflect the noble and right reverend Lord’s sentiments. We need to respond to the actions rather than simply what people have said before. We want to ensure that we focus all our diplomatic efforts in relation to all regional and other partners. We are working through the UN special envoy to ensure that we do so. Also, Minister Falconer is speaking to civil society actors within Syria. The security risks are very clear, but we need to ensure that we react with caution and sensitivity to focus on how we can support the genuine calls for an inclusive transfer. The last 13 years have shown the horrors of what a dictator can do. We now need to focus on supporting the Syrian people in determining their own future. The films that I have seen certainly reflect the jubilation of some people being released from those horrendous prisons. We should understand that.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
What is the Government’s view of the recent Israeli military actions in Syria?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, Israel has said that its presence in the buffer zone is defensive, limited and temporary, in response to the evolving security situation in Syria. As we have witnessed over the past year, Israel has legitimate security threats across its northern borders. Nevertheless, I will be clear that Israel’s presence in the buffer zone must not become permanent and I condemn the statements from some Israeli politicians who have already called for that. Israel has said that it remains committed to the principles of the 1974 separation of forces agreement and is committed to supporting the UNDOF peacekeeping force. The UK expects Israel to adhere to these commitments and I will hold it to them.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, it was a bittersweet moment for me when we heard about the fall of President Assad, because my great friend Marie Colvin was a brave and brilliant journalist in Homs whom we now think was targeted by him. Picking up on what my noble friend Lady Hooper—if I may call her that—said, and given everything that has been said, it is important that our journalists, particularly from the BBC, are able to report what is going on there. So can we please confirm support for the BBC World Service, in particular its Arabic service?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness knows my support for the BBC, including the World Service and its activity, and certainly she is absolutely right to draw attention to Marie’s outrageous death. I have been very keen to work with our allies to focus on media freedom. We are part of the Media Freedom Coalition, working with allies such as Canada. We are determined to ensure that the authentic free voice is heard, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the World Service is able to fulfil its functions in that regard.