House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I move the Bill with sunshine in my heart. I am an environmentalist, I have fought for years to improve the housing market in my town of Cheltenham, and I strongly believe that we all deserve a fairer deal on the cost of living. I was elected in July after campaigning on those three issues, and I move Second Reading of the Bill with those issues in mind. I thank hon. Members who have taken the time to attend today’s debate, and I urge them to retain a sunny disposition for the next few hours. I am happy to take interventions from Members from across the House, but I hope hon. Members will not use them to throw too much shade. I promise a warm response regardless, and I hope the Minister will provide the same.
Today, we can all make a commitment to a brighter future by backing the sunshine Bill. It will be a future in which people have lower household bills; we are less reliant on dirty and expensive fossil fuels, often imported from abroad; and the country’s energy supplies are more secure. This future is a vision supported by voters across political divides, as well as by industry.
Before I get to the core of my speech, I ask hon. Members to think back a few short years, to the start of the energy bills crisis. Householders endured a 54% rise in the energy price cap in April 2022, and bills remain 43% higher than they were before the crisis. That caused widespread fuel poverty. We witnessed another shocking increase in food bank use, businesses went bust, jobs were lost and family holiday plans were cancelled. The crisis also laid bare how short-sighted past ideological decisions were to slow down the roll-out of renewable technologies.
Imagine an alternative. Imagine that more homes included solar power generation during that crisis, and in the ongoing crisis. Bills could and should have been hundreds of pounds lower for everyone; householders would have been insulated against higher bills; and our nation would have been safer and stronger. Food banks would have been less busy, and the Government would not have been forced to give such large subsidies to ensure that people could get by.
At the heart of the discussion is a pressing need to tackle twin crises: the cost of living and climate change. As hon. Members will know, the climate change discussion often leads us to debate difficult trade-offs—the Government are grappling with those and they have my good wishes in doing so—but solar energy generation on new build homes is very much not in that category. The Bill helps us to tackle the cost of living and climate change—a clear win-win.
MCS Foundation research has shown that the payback period for a solar array on a three-bedroom semi-detached house is just four years, when that array is combined with other technologies that will be widely available in the next few years. Over a 25-year mortgage, the savings stand at a whopping £38,000. Solar technology also offers homeowners the chance to profit directly. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that a typical household could make between £270 and £400 a year.
On the environmental side, research by Solar Energy UK shows that buildings accounted for 20% of all UK emissions in 2023. The Government have placed building new homes at the heart of their agenda, which I support.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I genuinely welcome today’s Second Reading of the Bill. Having brought two private Members’ Bills through Parliament from the Back Benches, I wish the hon. Gentleman every success; it can be a long journey. Will he say more about the impact of solar panels on the environment and the green belt? In the shift towards using more solar panels, I fear many of the panels will be installed on prime agricultural land. I am disappointed that in Walsall, the planning inspector has just given permission for a battery storage facility on the edge of my constituency, right by a conservation area. I feel strongly that we need to look at alternative places for solar panels in order to protect communities and our green belt.
Max Wilkinson
The right hon. Lady is entirely right. She and Members across the House will have noted that the Campaign to Protect Rural England has taken a strong interest in this issue and in the Bill, for precisely the reasons she describes, with which I have a lot of sympathy. Efficient use of land and space in this country is extremely important.
If we are to achieve the new home building targets that the Government have set out, we must ensure that new build homes are equipped for the challenges of the future, which include climate change and looking after our environment. If we do not change the standards for new housing stock, we not only miss an economic opportunity but put the environment at risk. The Government’s own advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, has advised that the UK will not meet its emissions targets without the “near complete decarbonisation” of housing stock. That is why it is so important that the new Government, specifically the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, have moved the conversation along, not least as shown by the answer to a question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman before Christmas, in which he said he was “very sympathetic” to the case for mandatory solar panels on new build homes. He is right.
The case for updating the regulations is irrefutable. The regulations that govern building work are set out in the Building Act 1984, which is the year I was born, and the Building Regulations 2010, which is so long ago that Members will be disturbed to learn that I still had a large Brylcreem bill in those days. The previous Government consulted on the future homes standard, but we were not able to respond before the general election. It is heartening that the current Government have promised a response and to pick up that work. There will of course be strong pushback from some developers, who will default to thinking about profit only. I understand that profit motive, but I urge developers to think about the planet and what their customers are demanding.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I am pleased to see the Bill in the House today, but am not quite so entranced by the hon. Member’s puns, or by his making me feel completely and utterly ancient. Setting aside that niggle, on a serious point, does he agree that it is important for us to have a secure supply chain for solar panels, and that we eliminate the use of solar panels built by Uyghur people subject to forced labour in China?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member makes a very reasonable point. We need to be clear that our supply chains in this country are free from slave labour. That is a matter for Government procurement rules, and I understand that measures on that will come to the House in due course.
As I was saying, I understand the developers’ motives and why some will push back, but developers know what we all know, which is that the technology already exists and that implementing the measures in the sunshine Bill will be relatively straightforward for them. Solar panel technology has been available for many years and the construction industry is accustomed to working with it. Mandating installation at the construction stage is logical; it removes the burden from homeowners, and places the responsibility with the developer.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill to the House. It is so important that it almost feels like a no-brainer. Many of my residents share with me their frustration about trying to navigate the process of installing solar panels. There are questions about which provider to go with, how it works, and all the technical details. Does he agree that not only does the Bill have an environmental benefit, but it will—as he has started to explain—take that burden from residents and empower them? They will benefit from lower bills without all the faff.
Max Wilkinson
My hon. Friend is entirely right. As she knows, the Bill includes a recommendation to set an industry standard, so that consumers can have confidence in what they are buying. Not only is the burden removed from homeowners and responsibility placed with developer, but the Bill creates an efficiency saving in human resources and materials. It is an entirely logical step to take. Installing solar panels on roofs while the houses are being built is at least 10% cheaper than retrofitting.
There will be issues around cost, which Members might raise in interventions or in speeches, but Government estimates put the cost of mandatory solar panels on all new homes at around £5,200 per home. That sounds like a lot of money in isolation, but the average cost of a new build in the final quarter of 2024 was far in excess of £400,000, so we are talking about little more than 1% of the price of a new build home. That is next to nothing in the context of a monthly mortgage repayment, if we take the figure in raw form, and it would be offset by lower bills.
This Bill would mandate that all new homes are built with solar generation technology covering the roof space—a minimum of 40% of the equivalent of the building’s ground-floor area.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I too am interested in solar panels being mandated on public buildings. In my area, Rednock school has had solar panels retrofitted. Solar panels in educational facilities have two effects: they not only save money for the school, but teach young people about the issue. Also in my area, the NHS is looking to put solar panels on all south-facing roofs of hospitals. I wonder if we could extend the Bill to public buildings in general.
Max Wilkinson
I take the hon. Member’s point on board entirely, and agree with him. This Bill is limited to residential new builds; I was very conscious that in the public sector, the cost of initial installation would be borne by the taxpayer. He was right to reference schools. In my constituency, Bournside school is installing a huge ground source heat pump. That is a national, leading case study. He is right that it is important that young people understand what is going on. With regard to industry standards, we need to make sure that there is an industry-wide regulator and a certification scheme. The industry needs proper regulation to give consumers confidence in the product.
Supply chains were mentioned. To give supply chains, the construction industry and developers time to adjust, the Bill proposes that the regulations apply from 1 October 2026. Ministers may have comments on whether that is a realistic timescale—they might want to make it longer. I am sure that there will be a discussion.
Reasonable exemptions need to apply, including for very tall buildings; for buildings on which it would not be economical to install solar panels, due to roof size or other factors; and for buildings that had other forms of renewable energy generation installed that were more appropriate for that setting. Where buildings cannot physically accommodate solar panels that cover at least 40% of the building’s ground-floor area, the Bill requires that solar panels are installed to the maximum extent possible.
It is important to take part in some myth busting. To dispel one big myth about solar panels, they do not always need a clear, sunny day to work; they will continue to work in overcast, cloudy conditions. I think we can all agree that that is good news for this country. To dispel another myth, solar panels can be installed to good effect on north-facing roofs, although efficiency will be a little lower.
The overwhelming strength of the case for the measure means that the sunshine Bill has gathered support from industry. Over Christmas, several businesses and industry organisations signed an open letter to the Government in which they declared their support for the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the MCS Foundation, Solar Energy UK, Eco2Solar, E.ON Next and Ecotricity. I am particularly grateful to the MCS Foundation for its assistance and advice on technical matters in these last few months.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for letting me interrupt his excellent speech, which is loaded with fantastic puns that I would be very proud of. What discussions has he had with industry on making sure that we have the correct skills pipeline, so that we have enough installers and other people required to ensure that solar panels are installed efficiently and effectively, and to maximise the economic benefit to this country?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member is absolutely right. He will recall that if we go back more than a decade, there was a thriving solar energy industry in this country. Sadly, we have taken steps back over the last few years when it comes to the skills pipeline. I know that issue is on this Government’s agenda, and I welcome that. On the date on which we might look at this, we hope that further education colleges will put on courses to train people up, and that there would be more industry work, too.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the hon. Member explain why his Bill excludes the use of solar thermal panels?
Max Wilkinson
The Bill focuses on solar photovoltaics. Solar thermal panels are a different type of technology and are not covered by the Bill.
I would also like to thank CPRE. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke earlier about the preservation of land and fields in green areas, and the CPRE is specifically interested from that perspective.
Wendy Morton
This is becoming increasingly worrying, because we are now starting to see policy on grey belt. I fear that if we do not thoroughly grasp the issue of where solar panels, battery storage and all the other renewables infrastructure should go, we risk green belt being all of a sudden redefined as grey belt, in a few years’ time, and being built on.
Max Wilkinson
The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue.
We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them.
Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate.
MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. He talks about the nuclear power that may not be needed if we have solar panels on houses. Does he have a view on how much pressure we could take off demand on green land for solar farms, because many people have concerns about that use of green land, if we had solar panels on new builds?
Max Wilkinson
My strong suspicion is that the market will help to decide the answer to that question, but it is inevitable that if we produce more energy from some sources, it will lower demand in other areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
I visited Hinkley Point on a school trip as an 11-year-old and was told, very excitedly, that a new Hinkley C was on the way. I regret to tell the House that I am now 40 and, on current projections, Hinkley C is not expected to generate any power until I am at least 44. On the point of time, the new homes built today will outlast us all. If we can make them work better for the planet, they will be a lasting testament to this House’s efforts to tackle climate change, and they will offer protections against the energy shocks we have all endured too. That is what we have the chance to do today, if Ministers are willing to support the principles of the sunshine Bill. We cannot and should not let this opportunity pass us by, and it is our duty to build a political consensus here to match the consensus among members of the public.
So to paraphrase the great Morecambe and Wise in the song that shares the informal name we have given to this Bill, let our arms be as warm as the sun up above, and let us think about how much joy we can give to each brand new bright tomorrow—if only we can lower people’s energy bills and help to tackle climate change too.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I will try not to cloud the Chamber too much with puns; I will leave it to other hon. Members to shower the room with them. [Laughter.] It’s so painful.
I am glad that the Bill has been brought forward. There are so many good things in it, and I want to ensure that the country as a whole can embrace the future of solar power generation where people live, right in the heart of communities and on their homes. I have moved in the past year or so to ground level, as many people in my constituency know and frequently comment about on Facebook. I have lived most of my adult life in tower blocks, and one of the great things about 1960s council tower blocks is that there are fantastic views over everybody’s roofs. In all the decades I lived in those tower blocks, it was apparent that we are missing out in this country. So much acreage on rooftops is empty and devoid of power generation, while other countries have leapt ahead and taken advantage.
At the same time, I have seen where this has not quite worked. I watched a new council housing block being built right next to the previous place I lived in. Over its rooftops, I saw the solar panels go in and then saw what the problems were, where the management company and the local council were not quite able to make it work and to generate power for people there. The solar panels were for a long time unused and not functioning. That is the sign of a technology that was not quite mature, and it is only in the past five years that that has happened.
When, like me, Members go around their constituencies, they will see lots of solar panels on houses and have lots of conversations with people in pubs who have installed them on their houses. Some people will have had a great experience and will talk at length about how it has reduced their bills, and unfortunately others tell of the problems and challenges of getting connected to the grid and making it work. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason to have a clear eye as we go forward on this change. Hopefully, the Minister will talk about how we can ensure that this policy is successful in future.
There are loads of opportunities, but we should not lose sight of other opportunities as well. One of the most impressive things I have seen in my constituency from an industrial side is the cluster of factories around Kemsley paper mill from DS Smith. A third of the cardboard produced in the UK is recycled in that one location. It is part of a set of factories that use their waste products and heat to generate power themselves in a circular carbon economy. A key part is more traditional forms of power production. For instance, all the cardboard that is not used in those factories and that cannot be recycled is turned into electricity, and carbon capture is used. The carbon capture process is then used to support work in other factories, such as the production of plasterboard, and the waste heat is used.
The factories are already doing great work, and they want to expand further with solar power, particularly on an old landfill site, which is perfectly placed. That is a great opportunity, but there are also the factory roofs. Not all the buildings are suitable, but as we build on that cluster and can generate power locally, and as we build more homes around them and in that area to provide power, solar power has an important part to play. I very much want to see that we are able to change our building regulations and to ensure they meet the needs and opportunities from factories, but, at the same time, we must not close our eyes to the fact that there are many other ways of ensuring that we reach a zero-carbon future.
Fixing the housing crisis is absolutely not mutually exclusive with fixing the climate crisis. The hon. Member rightly identified the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I would add in the housing crisis as a third part of that, and I can see he does not disagree.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
This point has been made a few times, but it is almost as if there is a tension between protecting our natural environment and making progress on renewable energy sources. It is not a choice between the two; one is central to the other. As a former councillor, I know that it is vital that community voices are heard in this. If there is one thing that upsets local communities, it is when they are not involved in conversations on matters that directly impact them and the areas they live in. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Kevin McKenna
I wholeheartedly agree. I gave the example of a power generator on a roof not working, and that came down to the fact that the local community was not involved. The residents on the block saw no benefit from it, but it was causing them problems, including leaks in the roof and all sorts of other stuff. It is vital that we have not just a circular energy economy but a circular economic and monetary economy so that people see the benefits in their pockets as well as in the lights and heating in their homes.
I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to change the building regulations, meet the aspirations in the Bill and ensure that we have a comprehensive strategy to progress towards a zero-carbon, net zero future, while ensuring that that does not get in the way of tackling local environmental problems—biodiversity and so on—or the housing and cost of living crises. Those things are all joined up. That is how developers will work and deliver, and how we can ensure that that happens.
We all know that implementation is the tricky part of policy. The intention is very straightforward—and this Bill is full of great intentions—but getting the implementation right will be the challenge. We have had 14 years of hot and cold climate policy. Sometimes the previous Government went hell for leather on tackling climate change; at other points, they did not seem so certain. As well as developers, businesses and households have struggled with that, because they have not been sure of the direction of travel. I am hopeful that our new Government will now focus on stability as a key plank of our growth agenda, giving developers, communities and households the certainty they need to plan together. Everyone is looking for that framework.
Some areas and towns face greater challenges on housing and housing need. In Sheerness in my constituency, for example, the housing stock is of deteriorating quality. Much of it is post-war council housing, which, unsurprisingly in a coastal area, is not lasting and has high maintenance costs. We need a comprehensive renewal that brings in not just better housing, but the opportunity to leapfrog several stages in environmental learning and energy production, and ensures that energy production is brought into the heart of towns in my constituency and those of other hon. Members.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking with great passion about his constituents—that is always great to hear. When it comes to new homes, we must consider their efficiency from top to bottom. The Bill will add solar panels to new homes—we all welcome that, and I am happy to support it—but we must go further by ensuring that our homes are as efficient, warm and cheap to heat as possible. In Scotland, the private Member’s Bill introduced by Alex Rowley MSP could mean that all homes in Scotland are built to the Passivhaus standard, which I think is the gold standard right now. Does my hon. Friend think that we should aspire to that?
Kevin McKenna
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming in on that point, and I very much agree. Although my constituency is generally not quite as cold and damp as parts of Scotland, it is pretty cold and damp, and when the wind comes along the Swale it can get quite cold, as people who live in north Kent will know. The quality of housing stock, including insulation, needs attention. That is what I mean by a comprehensive picture; it is about not just power generation, but ensuring that we do not waste power and that the effect is ultimately felt in people’s pockets.
I know that other Members will talk with greater expertise and in greater depth about things happening in their constituencies and the opportunities that they see, and I look forward to listening to them. As we move forward, we must learn from past mistakes and from current great practice, and ensure that these policies actually work, unlike in the false starts of the past.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his good fortune in securing a place in the ballot in order to introduce what is, without doubt, a very important Bill. I am, however, concerned about the scope of the Bill, and I will come to that in a moment, if I may—I do not propose to take very long. For many years, I have consistently opposed the installation of solar farms—of course, they are not farms at all—on agricultural land.
In east Kent, we are losing grade 1 agricultural land far too frequently, both to development and to be used for solar power generation. It is completely unnecessary. As I have said many times, both in this House and outside it, we have acres and acres of rooftops in public ownership, on public buildings—schools, hospitals and prisons—in addition to acres of car park space, which the French would be covering in solar panels. If we use all of that, I can see no need whatsoever to use for these purposes fine agricultural land that should be used for growing crops for feeding people. That is why I think that the scope of the Bill, good though it may be, does not go far enough. We must look, not just at new build, but at what exists and what can and should be done.
By the bye, I would go a stage further and say that we should not only be looking at solar panels, but at grey water systems. We waste gallons and gallons of water off the rooftops of this country, which of course cannot then soak into the land because we have covered it in tarmac, so it is not replenishing the aquifers. That water ought to be used for flushing lavatories and matters that do not require potable water. Again, I think there is a trick that may have been missed.
Quite clearly, what is going to happen is that the developers and the builders will scream like stuck pigs. For why? Let us take a development in Herne Bay in my constituency. I will not name the developer, because I would hate to upset Taylor Wimpey, but it has avoided installing electric vehicle charging points because there is a bit of wriggle room—the amount that it would add to the cost of the property—that allows it to get off the hook. I do not doubt that installing solar panels initially would add to the first purchase price of the property, which of course might eat into profit, and we would hate to see that. But this is essential. We have to do this, and it is long past time. I notice that the Bill gives 2026 as the start date; I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not start immediately and say that, from now on, every new build should be fitted with photovoltaic panels.
There is another issue, which is the design of the technology. We all know that retrofitted solar panels are pretty unattractive—hideous, to be blunt about it. It surprises me that, in this day and age, those developing this technology have not gone far enough and fast enough to develop attractive panels that are simply roofs like any other roof. It has got to be possible to develop a photovoltaic tile that could be used on listed buildings, but that has not happened.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I just want to advise the right hon. Member that several products of the type he is referencing are available on the market at the moment.
Sir Roger Gale
If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of a photovoltaic tile that is acceptable to the people who are enforcing regulations relating to listed buildings, I would be delighted to hear it. That is what I was trying to come on to before I was interrupted.
Kent, a wonderful county, has very many grade II listed buildings, and at present, it is not permitted to use solar panels—or solar tiles, as I would like to see them—on those listed buildings. It is not even permitted on other buildings, outbuildings, cottages or whatever within the curtilage of a listed building. That rules out a considerable quantity of property that can and should accommodate solar panels.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
King’s College in Cambridge, one of the oldest and most prestigious heritage buildings, now has a fine array of solar panels that it managed to get through planning permission. Does the right hon. Member agree that what we need in planning terms is for material weight to be given to climate change, as well as conservation status? That is where the crux of the matter is. It would allow all those who are responsible for listed homes or who have homes in conservation areas to do energy efficiency in the right way.
Sir Roger Gale
Up to a point, I agree with the hon. Lady, but only up to a point. I do not want to see the fine buildings of Kent smothered in hideous installations, so we have to find a way technically of making the panels acceptable. I accept entirely that retrofitting is much harder than new build. It is possible to inset photovoltaic panels into a new roof on a new build, but it is much harder to retrofit it attractively. I would like to see us make much more effort to go down that road, so that we come up with products that are acceptable across the board—not just for new build, but for existing buildings.
It is essential that this Bill has a Second Reading, and I will be supporting it today. There are flaws in it, but that is what the Committee stage is about, and we should allow the Bill to go into Committee. If I may say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, there is rather too much wriggle room. I can see canny developers finding ways of exploiting some of the exemptions, if we are not careful, that he has written into the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an unintended consequences of this Bill could be that it is no longer possible to build a new thatched house? In Dorset and Hampshire, we welcome people who are developing new thatched houses. How will that work with this Bill?
Sir Roger Gale
The Bill does accommodate exemptions, and my hon. Friend makes a case in point. In the village I live in, we have thatched buildings, and I would like to see more of them. There may be cases where an exemption should be permitted, but looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems that these loopholes are wide open to exploitation, and they will have to be tightened up. That, however, is the purpose of the Committee. Let us give the Bill its Second Reading, get it into Committee, amend it and bring it back on Report and Third Reading, and then let us see it become law.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
One of my previous employers used to run a competition for schoolchildren. They asked them to draw a picture of a better future where we tackled our climate and ecological crises. The entries were displayed on a wall close to my office, and many times a day I passed them and looked at them.
Many young people had chosen to show a contrast. On one side of the page was often a burning world—now painfully familiar from our news feeds, as our dear friends in California find their world set alight, and I am also reminded to remember our neighbours here in the UK still reeling from our recent floods. The children’s pictures were sadly a good predictor of the threat, but on the other side of the page, where they showed their hope for tomorrow, children often drew homes surrounded by trees with happy people playing outside in the sunshine. Without fail, on the rooftops of the houses in those pictures were solar panels. Our children understood that a bright and sustainable future depends on clean and sustainable energy.
Our Government’s mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower is a direct response to the climate crisis and a clear mission to make energy secure and affordable. Photovoltaics fit the bill perfectly—simple, reliable and effective, they are the purest form of renewable energy, converting photons directly into electrical power, and we can place that power directly in the hands of homeowners.
The need for us to embrace solar power as part of a suite of energy technologies for a sustainable future is clear. Alongside offshore wind and underpinned by storage using green hydrogen, solar photovoltaic is a key technology for the UK to decarbonise its electricity and all the sectors and use cases that we electrify. While the use of land for solar generation is rightly contended, we have a vast and perfectly designed, yet barely tapped, resource on our rooftops.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Residents in my constituency are aghast that a mega 840 MW solar farm is being proposed by the Blenheim estate, which, people believe, has not allowed solar panels to be placed on the houses it has developed in the area. Does the hon. Member agree that placing solar panels on the roofs of houses is a much better way to diversify solar panels and build the community consent for the renewable transition that is part of the Government’s mission?
Tom Collins
I fully agree. Many people have told me that, intuitively, they would like solar to be put on roofs first. I think there is strong consensus that that should be our direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about some of the challenges of retrofitting. We need to listen to the social science, harness new initiatives such as GB Energy and activate local authorities to empower ordinary people to retrofit solar. We must develop ways for people to easily access trusted partners to help them decarbonise their homes and save money as a result.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The average price to install solar panels post build is somewhere between £5,000 and £8,000. The majority of people do not have that kind of cash stuck down the back of the sofa. Does the hon. Member agree that supporting the Bill is an investment both in our environment and in reducing energy bills for all new homeowners, not just those who have the cash to do so?
Tom Collins
I agree. As we face a transition in a range of technologies—my professional background is in heat—it is important that we put consumers at the heart of that and ensure that it works for them, and that we find ways to make it accessible, easy, affordable and beneficial to embrace new technologies. There are new business models available that can help us do that—heat as a service, for example—and we need to embrace those. But whatever we do as we navigate the transition, it is vital that we put people at the heart of what we build.
Having worked in the energy sector for 20 years, there is one comment that I have heard, and uttered myself, very many times—more than I can possibly count: “We should be putting solar on every new home.” There are very few no-brainers in politics, but if any exist, surely that is one of them. We have the opportunity to make a crucial change, to stop growing the problem and start solving it. Putting solar power on every new home will save people money. It will boost our national renewable capacity. It will be a crucial step in our mission for clean energy. And it will mean that for our children, who hope for a better future for people and our planet, we can begin to deliver the homes that they have always dreamed of.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Just after the general election, Ministers made the shock decision that the Sunnica solar farm in Ely and East Cambridgeshire would go ahead, despite the planning inspector’s recommendation that it should not. The farm will cover a vast area of our green space, using up prime farming land—land that could be set aside for the benefit of nature, and land that we might have used to build much-needed new homes. No sooner had that solar farm got permission than the lovely glossy leaflets for the next one came through the door about the next consultation, on an even bigger solar farm across my constituency, and others. Yet, as we have heard, we have acres and acres of roof space that we could put solar panels on. Why are we not doing that?
A couple of years ago, I was on a planning committee visit to a new housing estate that was being built, and I noticed that there was just one, or sometimes two, solar panel on each roof. I said to the developer, “Why just one or two? That’s hardly making a dent in things.” His answer was, “That was all we were required to do.”
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am a councillor on Mid Sussex district council. Some four years ago, I was sitting in training on a cross-party basis with Conservatives, Greens, Independents and Liberal Democrats, and we asked our planning officers, “Why can’t we mandate that all new builds have solar panels on the roof?” We were told that we were not allowed to, because it was not in the NPPF as it stood at that time. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to make the case for house building and tackle the housing emergency, we need to be able to convince the public that we are building high-quality houses that are fit for a climate crisis and that are energy efficient to reduce bills?
Charlotte Cane
I entirely agree. We had a similar frustration when looked at revising our local plan, because we wanted to put things in about energy efficiency.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils’ brilliant new joint local plan proposes that new homes should be net zero, with solar being the obvious way of delivering that, but that ambitious plan is now sat with the Government inspector, and we are in his hands. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be empowered to deliver on their net zero ambitions?
Charlotte Cane
I agree, because we were advised that we could not do what we wanted with our local plan, as it would have gone beyond the national planning policy framework. The local community want to do it, so we should be empowered to do it.
I entirely support the Bill, because it would make so much sense to everybody if we were to make sure that all new builds had adequate solar panels on them or, where appropriate, an alternative form of green energy production, so that people end up with houses that are not destroying the climate and where they can actually afford their fuel bills.
It is quite a long time ago now, but I remember when I bought my first house. I had carefully planned out all the costs to determine whether I could afford the mortgage and everything else, and then the winter came, I started getting my fuel bills and I thought, “Oops, this is a bit difficult.” I do not want that to happen to people. I want them to move into their new house and have low energy bills.
It is not in this Bill, but the Government have the power to do this: we must make retrofitting solar panels a good deal easier. It must be made easier for people to get the connection certificates they need, because that is a problem, and I am already getting casework about it. I commend Cambridgeshire county council, because it has a scheme whereby local people can register to join in with a group purchase, on which the county council does the due diligence. That means that people know that the supplier and the contractor are good, responsible, reliable people and they also get the discount of bulk buying. I commend the council on that scheme.
The Bill is a brilliant start to making sure that this country can get to net zero and that people have warm homes that they can afford to heat.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I begin by making a declaration of interest: my former employer, CPRE, the countryside charity, is a supporter of the Bill. Many of my constituents are also passionate supporters of the proposal for mandatory rooftop solar on new buildings; it is one of the issues on which I have had the most correspondence in recent months.
In North East Hertfordshire, the towns of Royston and Buntingford have seen rapid development in recent years, as have smaller villages such as Barkway, Puckeridge and Standon. In the near future, a new estate will be built on the edge of Letchworth Garden City and the town of Baldock is due to roughly double in size. At the same time, we face many challenging decisions locally to balance the need for renewable energy with the protection of our high-quality farmland, while also preserving and enhancing space for nature. It is therefore unsurprising that residents in North East Hertfordshire can see the common sense in making the best possible use of our finite land by putting the solar panels we need on rooftops.
Our approach to delivering the renewable energy we undoubtedly and desperately need has been far too laissez-faire.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My constituency has also seen significant population growth; it has grown by 35% in the past 20 years. New estates in Didcot, Great Western Park, Wantage, Kingsgrove, Highcroft in Wallingford and Wellington Gate in Grove have not all sought the opportunity to have solar panels on the new houses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not create the homes of the future now, there is a risk that we will have to retrofit them in future, at great expense, to reach our net zero targets and help residents with their bills?
Chris Hinchliff
I wholeheartedly agree.
As I was saying, we could suffer from the potentially profound impacts of competing demands for space for the homes we require, our commitment to protect 30% of our land for nature by 2030, and our fragile food security. Government figures show that with an industry average of 5 acres per megawatt, the proposed ground-mounted solar schemes put forward to date would, if they all went ahead, require a total land area roughly equivalent to Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle and Leeds combined. Yet at the same time, academic analysis indicates that between suitable existing buildings and new construction, there is potential space for 117 GW of rooftop solar in England by 2050.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a shocking dereliction of duty when the previous Government cancelled the zero-carbon home programme, which would have allowed for the generation of around 3,000 MW if every house built since 2015 had had solar panels on it? Does he agree with my residents in Taunton and Wellington, who are aghast and want to see solar panels on the new houses being built in Comeytrowe, Staplegrove and Monkton Heathfield?
Chris Hinchliff
I find myself, once again, in wholehearted agreement.
Ensuring that solar panels are installed on the rooftops of new buildings specifically could deliver a generating capacity over six times greater than that of Sizewell C. Clearly, if we start applying a strategic approach beginning with the provisions in the Bill, we can host the vast majority of the solar panels we need on our rooftops. Other nations are already proving that this can be done, with similar regulatory measures currently in place in Germany, China and Japan. Better yet, enacting this legislation would not only accelerate our progress toward meeting our climate targets, reducing the industrialisation of our countryside and protecting rural communities; it also offers the most effective way to ensure that the net zero transition lowers electricity bills for consumers.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my former colleagues at the MCS Foundation have provided research in support of the Bill.
I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about timescales, because in my experience this issue is the one that is raised most commonly by residents wanting to see action. Why on earth, they say, are new homes being put up without solar panels on them? Time is of the essence, but is it not the case that we have already lost many opportunities to progress? Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government. [Hon. Members: “No, they weren’t.”] The briefing I have had says that they were scrapped in 2014. [Interruption.] Either way, I am pleased to see cross-party support today to press ahead with this proposal at speed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that speed is of the essence here to ensure that homes are not being put up without solar panels?
Chris Hinchliff
I agree that speed is of the essence in multiple ways, and I encourage the Government to move as quickly as possible.
Empowering households to generate the electricity that they use will help families to lower their bills far more rapidly than commercial schemes that feed into wholesale energy markets influenced by international commodity prices. This strikes me as a well-drafted Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on its clarity and flexibility. The only thing that I might suggest is a widening of the provisions to cover commercial buildings as well, given the vast opportunities provided by warehousing space. It is estimated that we currently use only about 5% of warehouse rooftops for solar generation. Claims that the regulations would hinder innovation are clearly spurious, especially in view of the provisions for exemptions where other forms of renewable energy generation are installed.
It is high time that our country had common-sense standards for rooftop solar on new builds, and I hope that the whole House will support the Bill.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his Bill. I do have some reservations about it, which I will go into shortly, but I am minded to support it today because this is a much better policy than the current Government line about having large-scale solar farms on all our farmland throughout the United Kingdom. I would much rather solar panels were put on new builds, and councils already have some powers enabling them to do that. Broxbourne council, which I used to lead, has engaged in extensive negotiations with developers, particularly at High Leigh, where we have managed to get solar panels on some of the houses. A large data centre is also being built, and we have managed to put some solar panels on that.
As I have said, I do have some concerns. I am all for taking on developers and ensuring that they pay for their section 106 negotiations and do their community work, and standing up for the residents we all represent. However, during many of the negotiations when I led the council, developers told me that they wanted to put solar panels on more houses but the distribution network operator had told them that there was not enough capacity. I said that no one would be able to see the top of the data centre, so why not cover the whole thing in solar panels? Why would anyone not want to do that? Why would anyone not support it? That was my negotiating position. The developers went away and had discussions with the DNO, which said that they could have only 25% because there was not enough capacity for more and the system would not be able to cope. We need to have a discussion about the capacity of the grid if we are going to do this. I know that the Bill focuses specifically on new build properties, but surely it is a good thing to be able to use the rooftops of all the large data centres and warehouses that are already available.
Lewis Cocking
I was about to mention battery technology, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait just a few seconds.
The Bill does go quite far in that its ambition relates to all houses, but I think we should go further. If we are putting solar panels on houses, we should require those houses to have battery storage as well, which might solve some of the problems involving grid connection and there being sufficient capacity. Battery technology is a bit behind solar panel technology in terms of efficiency, and it is not quite there yet on cost-effectiveness, but we are definitely getting there. For example, it is more cost-effective to use the electricity in an electric car than to send it back to the grid. I urge the hon. Member for Cheltenham to consider that, because if we are taking this one step in installing solar panels, perhaps we should take one further step and require people to have battery storage as well.
I am concerned about the red tape we are going to create for new development. As I said, I am all for taking on developers—I see some councillors and former councillors in the Chamber, who have probably all had vociferous discussions like the ones I have had with developers about them doing their bit—but I am concerned about the pushback we might get in discussions on section 106 agreements. There are issues around viability, which I will not go into now, but I would not want to see developers telling their local councils and communities, “We can’t give you money for the new school or the doctor’s surgery because we’ve got to put solar panels on housing.” We need to give some thought to how that will work, because we all want the most community money possible for the roads, schools and GP surgeries that must come with new developments.
There will be some homes for which solar panels are not suitable. I am fully supportive of panels being installed on buildings that have an east-west facing roof, or on a block of flats. Where it is practical to do that, of course we should do it. As other Members have said, it is increasingly frustrating when we drive past a development to see a roof with only two solar panels on it, after the developers have gone through the whole cost of putting up the scaffolding and building the house. I suspect that is because of the issues around capacity, which we definitely need to look into, but come on. If they are already putting solar panels on half the roof, they should fill the whole roof with them, because that does not just help them; if they can sell the green electricity back to the grid, it helps everybody.
I have some reservations about where the money will come from. I would not want it to come from the resources that would have gone on schools, education and roads through section 106 agreements, so we need to look at that. We also need to look at distribution network operators and capacity, to make sure we can really harness the energy, but as this proposal is much better than having large-scale solar farms plastered all over our green belt and the countryside, I am minded to support the Bill’s Second Reading.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing forward this Bill on a subject of great importance. I know from personal experience the time and effort it must have taken to get to this stage.
I am sure Members on both sides of the House will agree that solar is a key tool in the renewable energy arsenal which, if used properly, can have a significant positive impact on tackling climate change and ensuring that we live in a more sustainable society. I am proud to represent a constituency that is taking the power of solar seriously. Constituents in Amber Valley regularly write to me wanting to know what is being done at both local and national level to tackle climate change. Even those constituents who are not what any of us would call eco-warriors are invariably unopposed to solar on rooftops, and that is not, it seems, unique to Amber Valley. As I walked through Westminster underground station this morning, a billboard caught my eye. The MSC Foundation was advertising the fact that a recent YouGov survey found that three in four voters believe that solar panels should be mandatory on new homes.
When Labour took control of Amber Valley borough council in 2023, the council had no council homes whatsoever, as the previous Conservative-run council had sold all the housing stock 20 years earlier at below-market rates. To right that wrong, the council has started a new council house building programme, and while we started small, we are working towards a target of 30 new council homes, each fitted with solar panels. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero last year witnessed four new builds resulting from that programme on his visit to the borough alongside the Mayor of the East Midlands. It is fair to say that we are committed in Amber Valley. Incorporating rooftop solar as part of our house building programme has been an important part of delivering cleaner energy and lower bills, and ensuring sustainability for our constituents.
When I first became a borough councillor in Amber Valley, I asked whether we could have a planning condition that solar panels must be installed on roofs, and I too was told that that was just not possible. That was totally perplexing to me, so I am sure that hon. Members can imagine that I am proud to be part of a Government who are spearheading the most ambitious house building programme in a generation, with a clear commitment to environmental sustainability.
Calum Miller
The hon. Lady speaks of the Government’s ambition, and there is one simple thing they could do. In December 2023, after lobbying from developers, the previous Conservative Government shamefully issued a written ministerial statement to prohibit a councillor in West Oxfordshire district council in my constituency from insisting on higher environmental standards for a net zero development. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Government simply revoked that written ministerial statement, local councils across the country would have more freedom to set higher environmental standards? Will she encourage the Minister to respond to that point?
Linsey Farnsworth
I would encourage the Minister to respond, because I do not think that it is for me to do so. However, I do think we should be doing everything we can to move towards a better, more sustainable future.
Not only are we building 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament, but we are committed to an ambitious decarbonising agenda and harnessing renewable resources across the UK. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero of course understands the importance of solar as part of our wider clean power mission, and the contribution that the energy efficiency of homes can make to our net zero emissions target. There is no doubt in my mind that rooftop solar plays a crucial role in that.
I support the notion behind the Bill. The Government are already working on future standards, particularly on the technical detail of solar, to ensure that they are appropriate. That will ensure that new homes and buildings embrace energy efficiency and are fit for a net zero future, and I look forward to the Government introducing those standards this year. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for raising this important issue in the House today.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
People in my constituency are passionate about protecting our environment, and they know that if we are to do that, we need to produce more renewable energy. However, in North East Hampshire, as in many other areas of the UK, we are also protective of our arable farming land, which is so essential for our food security.
Passing the sunshine Bill, which has been brought to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), would challenge the presumption that the principal way to increase our solar capacity is through solar farms and large-scale industrial solar power generation. Prioritising solar panelling on new homes will allow us to create the right energy mix and to produce energy in a sustainable way. Not only that, but it will help us to address some of the challenges with economic growth. Reducing energy bills, especially for those in social housing or on lower incomes, is an essential part of tackling the recent cost of living crisis, and developing the industry through innovation is of course good for jobs.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
There has been a lot of conversation this morning about the benefit to homeowners of installing solar panels on new builds. If solar panels were included on new social housing, we would also be helping those who face the greatest challenge in paying energy bills, which have gone up since the energy price cap rise. That is an added benefit in the cost of living crisis.
Alex Brewer
My hon. Friend is of course correct. This should not be just about cost savings for those who can afford installation in the first place.
In North East Hampshire, we have some fantastic examples of community investment in renewables. Hart district council has installed 121 photovoltaic panels on the roof of its offices, generating as much as 57,000 kWh of electricity per year, which is enough to power around 20 average homes every year. Hart leisure centre has seen £200,000 of investment in solar panelling on its sports hall, which reduces the demand put on the energy grid as a result of heating the swimming pool.
If you will permit me a “Sliding Doors” moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, my house was built in 1961, when this technology was not around. Had solar panels of today’s quality been installed then, not only would our energy bills have been significantly lower, but we could have saved in the region of 800 tonnes of carbon—roughly equivalent to 140 London to Sydney return flights. Given the Government’s ambitious house building targets, and as retrofitting is more expensive than installing at the build stage, it makes sense to ensure that we do all we can right now to protect our environment, to reduce energy bills and to secure this industry for the future.
Each house built without renewable energy is a missed opportunity to save carbon and money, and to grow our economy. Furthermore, each house built without solar panels increases the pressure to put panels elsewhere, including in our fields. Sustainable energy development is critical, but in North East Hampshire, as elsewhere, we do not want it to come at the cost of our countryside and our agricultural land. That is why I support this Bill, which prioritises putting solar panels on the roofs of new homes.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
This is an important debate; not only is it about solar, but it is about our climate and our environment. It matters to me, to my generation and to my constituents. My constituency mailbag is full of ideas about how we get clean energy and messages advocating for solar panels, so I know my constituents are interested in this debate.
There are many experts in my constituency. Just yesterday, I sat with a nuclear scientist from Wirral West, and there are many people who are passionate about the environment. In one quite brilliant architect, Colin Usher, we combine the expertise and the passion. He has brought intelligent design to bear in order to build super low energy use homes. Along with triple glazing, insulation and intelligent design, solar panels play an important part in those homes. The panels sit on the roof and heat the home, and excess energy is sold back to the national grid. So brilliant is the design that in the winter months, one of the people living in these homes pays just £10 for their energy. I hope we can expect future homes to meet that high standard.
I welcome the fact that the Government have already made a commitment to developing the next generation of homes with high energy standards and efficiency. It is better for our pocket and for the planet. Labour is clear that the crisis in our climate and in nature needs serious action. That is why, in the election, we committed to tripling solar power by 2030. Solar energy has an important role, and it is a part of GB Energy, which supports our mission to make our country a clean energy superpower. We are meeting our pledges with action: we are approving solar projects that will power the equivalent of almost 400,000 homes. I note that this Government, in just one week, has consented to more solar than the last Government installed in an entire year. That shows the marked difference this Government are already making in an area that the whole House is clearly passionate about.
I am pleased that the Minister is developing strong new standards, which will combine Labour’s ambition to build high-quality homes in the right places and the ambition to protect our environment. Our commitment to action will bring lower bills to my constituents. That is sorely needed after a difficult cost of living crisis, lasting for years, which has put pressure on household bills. In this way, we can really support our constituents. Through our meaningful action on more sustainable renewable sources of energy, we are making a difference to our climate.
It is pretty clear that the climate crisis does not respect rhetoric, weapons or borders; it does not care how many likes you get on social media or how viral your clip goes; it responds only to action, and the action the Government are taking gives me hope for the future. Across my constituency, people are taking action, and doing their bit to shift us toward cleaner energy. We must meet their ambition for a greener, sunnier and more secure future.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing the Bill before the House. As an environmental campaigner for the past 22 years, I very much support any Bill, including my own Climate and Nature Bill—a shameless plug—that encourages the shift away from fossil fuels. However, I do not support every measure that increases the use of renewables, which is why the sunshine Bill is so important.
There are good ways and less good ways to meet our international commitments on carbon emissions and climate change. A less good way, as has already been mentioned by many hon. Members, is to cover large tracts of our countryside in solar panels without the agreement or co-operation of local communities.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, but the choice between solar farms and rooftop solar installations is not a zero-sum game; they both have a distinct role to play. In our most ambitious plans, solar farms would account for less than 1% of land cover. Does the hon. Lady agree with Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, that solar farms represent a diversification opportunity for farmers that will also be good for the British public?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for the good points she raises, but I would like to see more solar panel installations that are motivated not by profit, but by concern for people and planet. That is my concern about some of the very large solar installations we are seeing proposed across the country, including in my constituency of South Cotswolds. We are rightly proud of our beautiful countryside, so a proposal for a 2,000-acre solar farm has provoked outrage and objections from nearby communities. Some 88% of respondents to an early consultation are against the plans. Some might say that their sacrifice is necessary for the greater good, but when I put myself in the shoes of nearby residents, I cannot agree.
I love my morning walks, which help to keep me sane—well, relatively. We need to be encouraging people to spend more time enjoying the outdoors, with all its benefits for mental and physical health, as well as strengthening the relationship between humans and the rest of nature. When I consider how I would feel if my cherished morning walk, through green fields, was instead going to be a walk through fields of black, shiny solar panels, past humming battery storage facilities, I would not be happy. Let us keep our countryside beautiful. It adds insult to injury for the people of Hullavington, Luckington and Sherston to see massive new warehouses and new homes springing up with not a solar panel in sight.
We need to meet our environmental goals in collaboration with people, not in opposition to them. My Climate and Nature Bill, which I will introduce next week, emphasises the need for public engagement on our journey to net zero. That journey will not be easy and will only be made more difficult if people feel that net zero is something that is being imposed on them, by corporate interests or Government, without respect for the wishes of nearby residents. Where ground-mounted solar may be necessary, let us make it small scale and community led.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Government’s housing targets mean that my area needs 9,500 new homes over the next 20 years, which thousands of my constituents are very worried about. Many of them would be far happier if they knew that the properties being built would meet the needs of local people, by being affordable to buy and cheap to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill is not only a no-brainer, but an essential part of gaining public support for house building?
Dr Savage
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
We also need to increase our national food security, decreasing our reliance on vulnerable international food supply chains and depending more on home-grown food, grown to trusted standards. Most farmers want to grow food, not solar panels. The need for a national land use framework is becoming ever more pressing.
We need a sensible long-term strategy for how we use our finite resource of land space in this country. I would like to see a much greater emphasis on multipurposing our land area. We need to get away from dividing up food production, housing and electricity generation. We can make much better use of our land when we take a multilayered approach. To that end, it makes sense to prioritise rooftop solar ahead of greenfield sites. Some 60% of UK solar targets could be delivered on rooftops by 2035. Generating energy at the source reduces the strain on the national grid, improves overall energy resilience and reduces the need for long, wasteful grid connections
Generating energy at the source reduces the strain on the national grid, improves overall energy resilience and reduces the need for long, wasteful grid connections or ranks of electricity pylons marching across our countryside. Retrofitting solar panels to houses is costly and disruptive; it is so much more efficient and effective to install solar at the time of building. In Europe, they get this. The EU solar standard requires solar panels on new and existing public, commercial and residential buildings. The EU’s goal is to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels, and it is working.
To me, the sunshine Bill is a win-win-win. It is a win for the UK, reducing our need for imported energy sources and improving our resilience and self-reliance; it is a win for householders, who can reduce their energy bills by generating their own electricity; and it is a win for the planet, supporting our transition away from fossil fuels. I will wholeheartedly support the sunshine Bill.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing forward this Bill, which deals with an issue that matters deeply to my constituents and to me. This winter we have seen the devastating impact that climate change can have on communities, and colleagues and I have watched in horror as wildfires have spread through California and flooding has impacted my constituency and many areas across the UK. Now, more than ever, we must find ways to weave the pursuit of clean, home-grown energy into everything we do, and solar power will make a vital contribution.
I have had the pleasure of visiting many local schools in Kettering since being elected. On every visit, children have told me that they are worried about our local environment and the future of our world, and I feel those worries too. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and which pledged to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. I am even prouder to see the progress that this Labour Government have already made in delivering on those pledges.
Only two weeks after the election, when most of us, including me, still did not know the way from the Chamber to Portcullis House, the Secretary of State lifted the ban on onshore wind, established the 2030 mission control centre and consented to solar projects that will generate more than 1.3 GW—enough to power almost 400,000 homes. This is clearly a Government of delivery, who are working to drive forward and increase rooftop solar, which, where appropriate, will help accommodate the Government’s 2030 clean power mission.
The potential for rooftop solar is huge, especially in constituencies such as mine, which is one of the fastest-growing areas in the UK and, of course, where the sun always shines. I have been contacted by many constituents about this issue, and they support the Government’s aim to achieve 95% clean energy by 2030. I understand their desire for solar and the need for it on new builds, warehouses and the ground, so I am glad that this Government have committed to ensuring that local communities continue to have a voice in planning matters, and that communities hosting clean energy infrastructure will benefit from it.
The speed of house building in Kettering means that we are no strangers to irresponsible and difficult developers, so our commitments to the environment must go hand in hand with planning. I know that the Government will introduce standards on house building this year to ensure that our new homes and buildings are fit for a net zero future, but we also need to ensure that developers cannot shirk their responsibilities to the environment and to local residents. Our house building needs to be sustainable so that local people can trust that their needs, and the needs of the environment, are being met.
The Government’s national planning policy framework is a lesson in how we can deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation while unlocking green energy and recognising the benefits of our best agricultural land, and all while making vital commitments to use planning to enhance the natural and local environment, protect valued landscapes, and recognise the character and beauty of the countryside.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to put on the record my support for rooftop solar and for this Government’s commitment to our environment in Kettering and beyond.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The 1.5° global temperature limit was passed for the first time ever in 2024. This politically significant milestone is a stark reminder that we must leave no stone unturned as we make the systemic changes required to every part of our economy for a safe future. Rooftop solar is one of the easiest of the changes that we can make. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said, it is a “win-win-win” policy that helps cut people’s bills and climate emissions, and helps strengthen our energy security.
Research and development of rooftop solar is already a British success story—we are world leaders—so it is time to take the next step and maximise deployment of on-site solar generation in new builds. That is the aim of the sunshine Bill, and I am pleased to have co-sponsored this proposal to create new jobs, to drive innovation yet further, and to generate abundant amounts of energy both while the sun shines and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) pointed out, when it does not.
Making solar panels mandatory on suitable new homes is almost universally popular—other than with some major house builders. That is what I want to focus on during the short time available to me. Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. If we are to meet the Government’s targets to ramp up solar capacity—which I hope we do—we should be looking up.
Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, so we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built. For goodness’ sake, let’s build them right the first time. That is where private housing developers come into the mix. The British designer and “Grand Designs” presenter Kevin McCloud wrote last year that in 15 years’ time the average profit on each new build home has rocketed from £6,000 to £63,000. I call on Ministers to stand up to the major house builders and ensure that they pay the cost of putting solar on every suitable new roof. The organisation 100% Renewable UK has calculated that mandatory solar panels and heat pumps in new homes would add around £8,000 to the cost of a new home—an amount that decreases as installations gather speed.
Clearly, housing developers can afford that cost, and neither they nor anyone else can afford the consequences of not meeting our solar or other climate targets. The Los Angeles wildfires are on track to be among the costliest in US history, as well as the most heartbreaking, with losses already expected to exceed £109.7 billion. Failing to decarbonise at speed, in line with the climate science, will dwarf the cost of future-proofing our homes. The moral case for acting is unequivocal, and so too is the economic one.
If Ministers are worried about the risk of solar costs being passed on to homebuyers, the Government could simply stop that happening. They could also offer interest-free loans for this technology, and make it easier for retail lenders to drive rooftop deployments. Property-linked finance or green mortgages can help consumers with the capital costs of installation, as could regulation to incentivise low interest rates for green mortgages. These are all political choices that the Government could make.
The sunshine Bill is not just about solar panels but about—forgive me—shining some sunlight on who has the power. Making every home a mini power station would help rebalance that power towards communities. I therefore very much hope that the Government will today choose to back both a solar rooftop revolution and mandatory solar being included in the future homes standard, rather than choosing to protect the vested interests that are behind the vast and ultimately unsustainable house builders’ profits.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I think it is laudable, and its heart is very much in the right place. We should think of the climate crisis in all matters of policy and in how we might contribute to the Government’s goal of making Britain a clean energy superpower.
The Government, guided by the excellent work of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, are already making great strides in combating the climate crisis, putting green energy at the heart of the country’s future and supporting green industrial growth wherever we can. The Government have established Great British Energy, which means that we will need new green infrastructure sooner rather than later. When it comes specifically to solar energy, I was very pleased that, within just days of taking office, the Government approved three major, long-stalled, large solar farms in Lincolnshire and East Anglia, capable of generating 1.5 GW, or enough to power 500,000 homes. That was a clear statement of intent, and one that we can all be very proud of.
At the same time, the Secretary of State pledged a rooftop revolution, making it easier for newly built homes to come with solar panels from the off and to install solar panels on existing homes. A third of our solar generation capacity already comes from rooftop solar, it is an important part of the energy generation mix and I know that the Government fully believe in rooftop solar, as I do.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member talks a lot about the measures that are being put forward in the move towards net zero, but we need to go further. CPRE Hertfordshire says that 60% of our targets could be achieved through rooftop solar panels alone, and supporting the Bill will help to make sure that that revolution helps towards net zero for our planet and our people.
Adam Thompson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will cover some of those points shortly. I broadly agree with the sentiment of what she said.
The Bill’s aims, in promoting the installation of solar panels on all new homes, feed into the Government’s overall intent, and I am pleased about that. I note, however, that it is undeniable that solar farms, especially the larger ones, are much more efficient than rooftop solar for a whole spectrum of reasons. Rooftop solar panels are constrained by the size, orientation and structural limitations of individual buildings, while solar farms are optimised for maximum energy generation. The difference in output can be as high as 30%. Economies of scale mean that the cost to install, maintain and centralise the supportive infrastructure notably reduces the ratio of cost per unit of energy generated by solar farms. That is not to say that I do not support rooftop solar, because I very much do, but solar farms are a highly scalable, cost-effective means through which to achieve the green energy transition.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Is that not exactly the point—we need to do both, because that creates a subsidy for more opportunities to have rooftop solar panels?
Adam Thompson
I completely agree. It is not about one solution versus another, but a diverse, broad array of solutions, all feeding into a grand, greener future.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about a balance. My view is that solar is better on rooftops, but if he is so pro-solar installations, how many thousand acres in his constituency is he actively campaigning to see turned into ground-mounted solar?
Adam Thompson
I must say that I declare my support for those projects wherever they come up. Indeed, I will touch on some of them in a moment. I was recently asked by the media whether I would be happy to have pylons outside my house, to which I responded with a photograph of a pylon taken from a window in my house.
I have long felt that despite the great benefits solar farms bring, they have often been too difficult to bring forward. The UK has around 15 GW of solar energy generation capacity. In Germany, meanwhile, solar capacity grew by 14 GW in 2023 alone. It is clear that the UK’s current planning regime and approach to building infrastructure constrains growth and sees us lag behind similar nations. If we want Britain to be a clean energy superpower, as I do, and leading the green energy revolution rather than just following it, we must tear down the barriers to growth and unlock our potential.
In my constituency, my Labour colleagues on Erewash borough council have, in their own small, local way, helped to be part of the change that we need. Since taking control of the council in 2023, they have approved several solar farms, while the previous Conservative administration always blocked them, and I am very proud of my colleagues for doing so. I was also very proud to tell the now Energy Secretary that information when he visited Erewash this time last year. The progression of these vital infrastructure projects, which are pivotal to the future of our country, must be driven by a national strategy and not held up by bureaucracy.
As I have said, the Bill’s proposals are laudable. The drive to green energy generation along with this Government’s ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower could be, to this decade and to those to come, what the race for space was in the 1950s and 1960s—countries engaged in a great contest of scientific innovation and progress. There is nothing that I, as a former research scientist, could welcome more than the Government pursuing science, innovation and technology as a matter of not only core policy, but national pride.
This Government are committed to greatly expanding our provision of solar energy generation and have acknowledged many times the significant part that rooftop solar has to play in that expansion. I hope that supporters of this Bill are assured by the Government’s genuine commitment on this front. The climate crisis and the housing crisis are both profound issues, worthy of the descriptor “crisis” and in need of immediate action. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members share the Government’s commitment to act here, as I most certainly do.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I pay tribute to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for so boldly taking up this cause. His so-named sunshine Bill, which to my mind reflects his own disposition so brightly—as though it was his own glowing cranium—[Laughter.]
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I may only speculate what it was that attracted my hon. Friend to discuss a Bill regarding the promotion of shiny surfaces atop well-built structures—we can only guess. Does he agree that as this Bill moves forward, it is absolutely essential that the Government work across parties to build a consensus, including all those experts and those passionate in this subject, and to work together to ensure that it is successfully delivered for the betterment of all our residents?
Cameron Thomas
My hon. Friend has so eloquently put across the pragmatism that we can enjoy from Liberal Democrats in working across parties for the benefit of our constituents, and I thank him for that.
This undertaking by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been brought up consistently on doorsteps across the Tewkesbury constituency in recent years. Widely considered to be a blindingly obvious antidote to rising energy bills and the phasing out of fossil fuels, people have tended to ask, with an exasperated tone, why on earth new homes are not built with solar panels by mandate. As my hon. Friend has described, the public roundly support such measures, with one poll registering 70% support. Whether or not the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill goes to a vote today, I hope that the Government will recognise the alignment with their environmental pledges and that they will take the ball and run with it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing this Bill. Rooftop solar panels are a huge area of huge potential. On such a grey day, I also thank him for bringing all the sunshine.
I am pleased that the Government are already exploring rooftop solar panels on new build houses in the “Clean Power 2030” action plan, which aims to have at least 95% of Great Britain’s electricity produced by clean energy by 2030. The Government relaunched the solar taskforce quickly after the general election, bringing together experts from the Government and industry. The taskforce’s road map is due to be published in the spring, and it will set out recommendations for how we can triple the UK’s solar capacity by 2030. I look forward to that.
The pylon issue has been brought up. I grew up and lived in a home under a pylon for nearly 50 years, and I do not think it has done me any harm. I know that the Government are due to introduce further standards later this year. They will set our new homes and buildings on a path away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and they will ensure that those homes and buildings are fit for a net zero future. I am sure the Minister will expand on that.
As well as new builds, it is important that people know that assistance packages are out there to help them with installing solar panels on existing homes. That includes the energy company obligation, the warm homes local grant and the warm homes social housing fund. Owners of solar panels can also be paid for the surplus electricity their solar panels generate through the smart export guarantee, and there is a zero rate of VAT on residential solar panels.
Much of what has being covered in this debate is devolved, although Members may not have known that I was Welsh. To my constituents in Gower and across Wales, I point to the Welsh Government’s Nest programme, which can provide free energy efficiency improvements, including solar panels, to those eligible.
The Bill states that it
“extends to England and Wales.”
Of course, the hon. Member for Cheltenham will be aware that building regulations are devolved. What conversations has he had with the Welsh Government or Members of the Senedd about this? I am sure that the Welsh Labour Government would be delighted to work alongside the UK Labour Government—they probably are already doing so—to ensure that homes are more energy efficient and that our constituents have the opportunity to save money on their bills.
The important thing about the path forward is that the Government should work with house builders to get the best outcomes for both our environmental targets and our housing targets. We must also build high-quality, sustainable and affordable homes. As has been mentioned by many, the scope of the Bill does not cover roofs other than those on new builds, so I highlight the need for solar panels on all roofs. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, we must take the agricultural land that we need for food to feed our country into consideration, and we must strike a fair and right balance. I know that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) has also raised that issue. I feel very passionately that we must not do down one or the other.
We must be aware that there are problems, particularly with tenant farmers and how they are being treated by companies. Where there are bad actors, I know that our Government—my Government—will seek to find them. I hope that the Government will work in collaboration with farmers, who may need to have a blend and have solar farms on their land, as well as with tenant farmers. I know that the Government are committed to find a workable way forward on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for the chance to highlight it in this debate and for the sunshine he has brought.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero, I am delighted to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson): the sunshine Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am beaming.
South Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing constituencies in the country in terms of house building and lab space. People constantly say to me, “Why are all of these new homes without solar panels on their roofs?” or “Why do these new homes only have one or two solar panels or only on part of the roofs?” Sadly, in 2025, developers are still required only to meet—not exceed—the Merton rule’s inadequate 10% energy improvement standard. That is why Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency have been pushing hard to change this at the local level. In fact, in the five years since they took control of the council, South Cambridgeshire has rapidly become the district with the highest number of solar panels fitted and with the fastest increase in planning applications that include solar panels.
It is the lack of ambition and political will at the national level that has held back the revolution in solar rooftops. That is why we are still building homes that are cold and damp and that have skyrocketing energy bills. The former Conservative Government disgracefully scrapped the zero carbon homes policy, and dithered and delayed on the future homes standard.
Cameron Thomas
Earlier, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) lamented—in good faith—the drawdown of environmental pledges in 2016. Of course, that was not the coalition Government; what we saw and what we got is what happens when the Liberal Democrats are no longer there to hold people to account.
Pippa Heylings
It will not surprise anyone to hear that I agree wholeheartedly. The record has been corrected. It is vital that the Bill helps to repair that damage, and we look forward to the Minister’s commitment to bringing about these changes.
As has been mentioned, the lack of ambition on the solar rooftop revolution has contributed to the barrier to public acceptance of larger scale solar farms. We are hearing people say, “Why not put panels on the rooftops of homes, industrial sites and commercial warehouses first?” We need a joined-up plan; we need the Government urgently to bring forward the much-promised land use framework and the National Energy System Operator’s strategic spatial energy plan, which will show how much solar farm energy is still needed and where it would be best placed. In that way, we can meet all our needs.
The Bill is our chance to get this right. It is our chance for a cleaner, greener and more secure future that addresses the triple cost of living, housing and climate crises and takes people with us. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this sunshine to the Chamber today.
The horrific wildfires raging in California and the recent flooding that we saw provide yet more reminders that urgent action is needed to tackle the climate and nature emergency. I am proud that, under this Labour Government, the UK is once again showing climate leadership. We know that we cannot tackle the housing crisis without tackling the climate crisis. Nor can we achieve our core growth mission or increase living standards without acknowledging the huge impact of climate change.
The built environment is responsible for 40% of emissions, and decarbonising our housing stock is essential. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on ClimateTech, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I was pleased to attend a recent event in Parliament, where we met start-ups working on innovative solutions to decarbonise the built environment. The Government’s steadfast commitment to this agenda and to policies such as Great British Energy and the warm homes plan were warmly welcomed by the businesses I met.
Turning to my constituency, I want to share an example of how a local business can use the expansion of rooftop solar and of low-carbon heating and energy generation to help our Government achieve their mission of stimulating economic growth and raising living standards in all parts of the country. I recently visited a former Marks and Spencer on Mostyn street in Llandudno, which the owners are transforming into a massive indoor entertainment centre. That is exactly the kind of development that places such as Llandudno need. The owners have installed a huge solar array, which will save the business £32,000 a year and about 25 tonnes of carbon. For me, the most exciting part of that development is that the installation was part-funded by the local authority and done by a local business. We do not want just the cleaner, cheaper energy that rooftop solar will provide; we also want the jobs.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend speaks about precisely the jobs that the Bill would generate. I declare an interest in that between speeches I have been emailing to arrange the installation of a solar array on my home in the next couple of weeks. Although I will not benefit from the reduction in the cost of installation and of the panels themselves that the Bill would provide by boosting the market and demand for those skills, does she agree that the economic benefit and the skills brought to our residents are another incredibly positive reason why we should back the measures in the Bill and ensure they are implemented as soon as possible?
Claire Hughes
I absolutely agree, and that is why we need to get this right, not just on rooftop solar but on the skills for retrofitting and in low-carbon heating in general. A lot of work needs to be done to ensure that businesses have the skills so that we can expand and do what we need with this whole agenda.
We need to ensure that local businesses benefit from the jobs and supply chain opportunities that the expansion of low-carbon heating and rooftop solar would provide, because tackling climate change and increasing living standards go hand in hand. It is critical that we get this right across the piece.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this important issue to the House. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I know he and Ministers in his Department have had a busy week.
Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050.
While welcoming the Bill and its aims outlined this morning, I would like to add to the debate some possible unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. I want to be a genuinely constructive voice in ensuring that the Bill gets to Committee—I hope the hon. Member sees that—but some areas could be strengthened. I appreciated his sunny disposition in bringing the legislation to the House today. I will try to be a ray of sunshine as I get through this speech. [Interruption.] I am in danger of misleading the House there. I hope to be a sunny ray of light in Committee should the Bill get through and we table amendments to it.
The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters.
Additionally, in November 2023, as has been outlined, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced expanded development rights, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels without the need for planning permission in most cases. That was a positive step, and I hope to see such support continue. As the Government pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what impact the Bill would have on house building. Building costs are already high and projected to rise further. Even the chief executive of Homes England has admitted that delivering Labour’s housing target may require two parliamentary terms, not one as the Minister outlined.
I also note that the implementation date of 1 October 2026 in clause 1 provides little time for the industry to adapt to the significant challenges the Bill introduces. Given the growing pressures on the industry, it is necessary to question whether the Government have considered and worked on the potential skills shortage, as an hon. Member raised earlier, and the feasibility of implementing the standards in this well-intentioned Bill.
We know that the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks among developed countries, with a particularly complex system of housing tenure. Buildings owned by freeholders and occupied by a mix of leaseholders and tenants present ongoing challenges for successive Governments when implementing necessary updates and retrofits. Meanwhile, in the realm of housing development, where 1.4 million new units already have planning consent, developers continue to highlight issues, such as the cost of solar panels, as a significant obstacle to advancing new housing projects. We must therefore consider whether the additional costs imposed by the Bill could hinder progress in delivering housing. Could it add restrictions to house building plans, particularly when it comes into effect in 2026? We are open to the timescale that the Bill would implement.
Sir Roger Gale
Does my hon. Friend not accept that, while it is not remotely surprising that some developers are resistant on the grounds that the Bill will add to the costs of building property—it indubitably will—we should recognise the flipside of that coin, which is that it will enhance the value of the property and make its management and running much more affordable?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee.
Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs?
The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge.
To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered.
As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning.
If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.
Caroline Voaden
When the zero carbon homes standard was scrapped by the Conservative Government in 2015, a Government report said that scrapping that standard was designed to reduce regulations on house builders. Many people said that the Conservative party had been put under considerable pressure by house builders who were very generous to that party. Will the shadow Minister reassure me that if this Bill reaches Committee, he will be in favour of putting pressure on the house builders to comply?
Paul Holmes
There I was, being nice about a Liberal Democrat-proposed Bill. As the hon. Lady knows, the Liberal Democrats are the bane of my life in my constituency, but I was being nice to the Liberal Democrat Member who introduced this Bill, and the hon. Lady has come back and been quite nasty to a Conservative. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.
As my speech clearly outlines, we in the Opposition will take a pragmatic approach to legislation that comes before the House, so that people will see the right measures brought in—for developers, if necessary—for new developments across the country. I am not going to be party political and talk about donations. The last Government had a very strong track record of reducing carbon emissions and making sure we delivered the homes that we need across the country. We will continue to be a constructive voice in Parliament, as I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. We will be very pragmatic and constructive in making sure that the aims of this Bill are realised, should it reach Committee. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has my assurance on that, as the shadow Minister responsible for this policy area.
I fully support initiatives to encourage renewable energy and solar panel usage, but it is crucial to address the practical challenges we face. As has been mentioned, the national grid’s infrastructure may not be equipped to handle a significant increase in capacity from solar generation alone. A recent article outlined that £60 billion of investment in the national grid is needed to make sure that solar energy can be put back into the grid in a sustainable way.
I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that we have already achieved a 50% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing our economy by 79%. As we continue on this journey, our policies must strike a balance between ambition and realism. I look forward to hearing more about the provisions in this Bill, and hope that this debate will bring us closer to solutions that support both its practical implementation and our environmental goals. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and look forward to seeing him—if he is lucky—in a Committee on this legislation. At the risk of being sanctioned, I promise him that I will be a ray of sunlight when we work together to ensure that this Bill is strengthened and becomes legislation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on initiating this high-quality debate. It has been an honour to hear the many contributions that have been made.
New homes must be built with the years 2030, 2040 and 2050 in mind, not the year 2000, and I am glad that the national planning policy framework has been drafted in the context of the wider climate crisis, so that planning decisions on new homes apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. I look forward to the sunshine that the Minister will bring at the end of the debate, along with, I hope, more details about supplementing the NPPF.
The domestic installation of solar panels has had a rough history in the UK since 2010. The previous Labour Government adopted zero-carbon homes regulations, but they were watered down in 2010 and largely scrapped in 2015. One million new homes have been built since 2010, most of them with minimal standards for water and energy efficiency. Sooner or later those, along with all the much older homes, will have to be retrofitted.
All our constituents really care about the climate crisis. It is one of the most common topics in my mailbox; it is raised by children in schools, and by grandparents at residents’ meetings. Yesterday evening I attended a meeting of Osterley and Wyke Green residents’ association in my constituency, where we discussed solar panels. Many residents who live in conservation areas want to be able to install solar panels on their south-facing roofs where they face the road, and have asked me to see whether that is an issue of supplementary guidance or of national planning policy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
We have a housing shortage in North Norfolk. In in particular, we need to build houses that are affordable to buy and cheap to run. Most of my constituents would be far happier with the current growth in house building if they knew that the properties were being built to meet the needs of local families, and that can be done. Some of the most energy-efficient, low-cost housing in my constituency has been built by housing associations, such as Broadland, that have constructed mixed developments containing both expensive and social housing, and it would be perfectly possible to do that at scale.
The new regulations on solar panel installation that the Bill would require the Secretary of State to create could help us to deal with some of the problems and frustrations about rooftop solar. One constituent complained to me about a lack of quality bird netting or deterrents on solar panels in his street, which has led to a large influx of pigeons that are causing a considerable nuisance to him and his neighbours. That may sound like a scene from a Hitchcock film, but it is causing daily frustration, and could be easily avoided if the provisions in the Bill were correctly applied. I cannot find any puns to add to that story.
Anyone who wants to tackle climate change knows that it makes sense to put solar panels on the roofs of new builds. Anyone who wants to move into a house with low or no energy costs knows it, and anyone who is worried about excess solar farms being installed in our fields knows it, too.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me start by sincerely thanking the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill, for the constructive spirit in which he has engaged with me on it, and for his laudable efforts outside the Chamber—including his efforts as a local councillor, before coming to this place—to promote the further growth of solar power. I know it is a cause that he cares about, and his passion and commitment were evident in his opening remarks. I also thank all the other Members who have spoken this morning for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions. It has been a wide-ranging debate and the quality has been high—although the same cannot be said, I am afraid, for many of the puns that have been made throughout.
The Government are extremely sympathetic to the intention behind the Bill, namely to significantly boost the deployment of rooftop solar. That aim is clearly shared widely across the House, and for good reason. Self-generation and consumption through solar PV panels not only decreases emissions and delivers bill savings for householders, but provides security from fluctuations in wholesale electricity prices. As solar technology becomes more efficient and affordable, installing panels during construction is increasingly more cost-effective than retrofitting, a point that many Members touched on. The Government are, therefore, in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman that solar energy has an integral role to play in improving the energy efficiency and reducing the carbon emissions of new homes.
However, we cannot support the Bill today. That is because the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes. The new standards will ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric. Not only will they help us to deliver our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, but they will reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, grow skills, foster diverse job markets and make Britain energy secure.
Let me make this absolutely clear to the House and to those watching our proceedings: solar energy will have an extremely important role to play in these standards. The Government’s reservations about the Bill are not related to its objective; rather, they stem from recognition that the regulatory landscape being dealt with is incredibly complex and that we must take great care to get the technical detail right. My officials and I are working to develop the technical detail of the solar standards we intend to implement, with a view to ensuring that they are both ambitious and achievable. Our concern is that passing primary legislation that does not strike that balance correctly could have adverse effects, including on housing supply, the construction industry and local authorities.
Although the Bill is not inherently flawed, we are not convinced that it is the most appropriate means of proceeding, for reasons I shall set out shortly. None the less, the hon. Member for Cheltenham has done the House a great service by providing hon. Members with a valuable opportunity to debate this important issue. In the time available to me, I will try to give the House a sense of some of the practical challenges we have been wrestling with as we develop and refine our emerging proposals, and how they speak to potential weaknesses in the Bill.
As hon. Members will be aware, in December 2023 the previous Government published the future homes and buildings standards consultation, setting out proposals on what new standards should entail. The consultation closed in March last year. Over 2,000 responses were received, and some of the most detailed feedback the Department received related to the options set out in respect of solar. The hon. Gentleman has, I know, amassed a not inconsiderable amount of technical expertise when it comes to rooftop solar systems, and he has consulted with industry stakeholders, so he will be acutely aware that setting environmental standards for new homes is not something that Government can do in isolation. To succeed, we must take industry with us, and crucially, we must also ensure that the standards we set are achievable on all sites across the country.
While it is certainly not dictatorial, the expert feedback to the consultation as well as our ongoing work with the industry-led future homes hub, where we have been considering matters such as design flexibility, has been invaluable in shaping the Government’s thinking on what future standards should look like and how they should be implemented. The feedback to the consultation we received drew attention in particular to a number of practical considerations, which we believe it is essential to take into account when determining the precise role of solar in the new standards. I shall touch briefly on three, to illustrate the sort of practical issue my officials and I have been weighing up as we develop the forthcoming new standards, and in so doing give the House a sense of why we feel the Bill may not be the right way to achieve the objective we all share.
The first consideration relates to the ground floor area requirement. As hon. Members know, the future homes and buildings standards consultation set out two options for new homes; both included very high-quality building fabric and a heat pump. The first option also included several additional elements, notably solar panels equating to 40% of the ground-floor area. While respondents were very supportive of the inclusion of solar panels, widespread concerns were raised about the proposed level of solar coverage, which many argued would be virtually impossible to achieve on certain types of home—for example, those with dormer windows.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill sets out a requirement for the same level of solar coverage as was proposed in the consultation. Having thoroughly explored the evidence submitted during the consultation process, the Government have concluded that this level of ground-floor area coverage, rather than just being challenging for a small proportion of new supply, is simply not feasible for many new homes. Importantly, our concern is that setting a requirement at this level in law would result in a significant number of homes needing to apply for an exemption to the standards, which in turn could cause unmanageable workloads in local authorities, lead to significant bottlenecks in housing supply, and ultimately reduce the speed at which rooftop solar on new homes is rolled out.
Determining exemptions is by no means a trivial task. Solar panel systems must be designed carefully for each individual house, taking into account features such as roof shape and pitch, roof lights and dormers. As such, determining the number of solar panels a roof can reasonably accept is a technical design exercise for which many local planning authorities are simply not resourced to carry out in large numbers. Furthermore, any regulation would need to have an enforcement mechanism to deal with instances where unscrupulous developers simply did not comply. The Bill does not address that point, and again, we fear it could end up being another burden that will fall on overstretched local planning authorities. Alive as we are to these unintended consequences, the Government are determined to take an approach that is both ambitious and technically feasible so that widespread exemptions are not necessary.
The second issue relates to the timeframe for introducing the changes. Clause 1(1) stipulates that solar PV will be mandatory on new build homes from 1 October 2026. While that may seem some way into the future, the design and specification of new housing developments is typically set some considerable time prior to construction. As a result, the Bill’s proposed commencement date could risk a significant increase in costs and delays to housing delivery, as developers are forced to rapidly redesign, including sites already in train.
It is important to bear in mind that those in the industry cannot properly prepare for the new requirement until they have access to the final regulations and accompanying statutory guidance. Preparing the regulations and said guidance is not an insignificant task. They need to be drafted and consulted upon, with the consultation open for at least 12 weeks to align with standard protocol and to permit industry sufficient time to respond to such significant proposals.
Following the consultation, the regulations and guidance will need to be finalised and passed using the affirmative resolution process. It is therefore unlikely that the full detail will be available to the construction sector until the end of this year at the earliest, giving the sector only a few months to redesign and get supply chains prepared. These issues are particularly pertinent for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less equipped to respond quickly. By potentially compressing this period to meet the proposed deadline, housing sites that are already under way may become unviable, leading to wasted investment, a negative impact on housing supply and disruption to numerous local communities across the country—outcomes that I am sure Members will agree we must try to avoid.
The third and final issue relates to transitional arrangements. Government typically minimise the disruption associated with the introduction of new building regulations by setting out associated transitional arrangements. These arrangements determine the limited conditions under which a building can be built to the previous standards. That gives industry time to adapt to new standards and allows work that is already under way to be completed without major disruption. When the 2021 standards were introduced, a six-month period was allowed between laying the regulations and the standards coming into force, followed by a 12-month transitional period. That meant the regulations were laid on 15 December 2021, with the transitional period ending on 15 June 2023.
This Bill does make provision for the Secretary of State to put in place transitional arrangements. However, our reading of the Bill is that those arrangements cannot contradict or override its main premise that new homes built from 1 October 2026 must be fitted with solar panels. As a result, we are concerned that there may not be sufficient time for appropriate transitional arrangements to be set. We believe it is vital that they are set, given that the construction sector typically plans ahead by at least two, if not three or even more, years. Providing merely a matter of weeks between publishing such significant legislation and its taking effect would not be realistic or fair, in our view.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady makes a fair challenge, but the Government do not intend to proceed on the basis of primary legislation. She might find that the primary legislation route is ultimately slower than the way in which we intend to introduce the future standards later this year. Speed is absolutely an issue we are grappling with, but I gently challenge the idea that this private Member’s Bill is the fastest way to proceed, even leaving aside the points I have raised, which I do not consider to be minor or technical.
In contrast, the future homes standards consultation sets out two options for transitional arrangements, which we believe are far more robust. The first option involves a six-month period between the laying date of the regulations and the regulations coming into force. The second option involves a period of up to 12 months. That approach to transition will ensure that as many homes as possible are required to meet the new standards in a way that is structured and achievable.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the standards we set for new homes are ambitious, but also technically feasible and deliverable, as I have said. For the reasons I have set out, and others that I have not covered today, we believe that forthcoming future standards, developed as a clear and coherent response to the 2023 consultation, are a more appropriate and arguably faster means of achieving the Bill’s aims, which we fully share with the hon. Member for Cheltenham.
Nesil Caliskan
Reflecting on the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) about industry using excuses to push back on delivering homes, can the Minister give assurances that in their efforts the Government will push ahead with renewable energy, particularly solar, and do everything they can to ensure that industry and housing companies do not use viability as an excuse not to deliver the many new homes that we need?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am afraid that the time to go into it is not available to me, but I would mention the Government’s intention to revise viability guidance this year to strengthen the section 106 developer contributions system rather than implementing the infrastructure levy that the previous Government devised. In lots of different respects, this Government are absolutely ensuring that developers are held to the commitments they make, and, as she will know, we gave significant weight to the benefits of renewable and low-carbon energy proposals more generally in the NPPF.
As I was saying, maintaining consistency with the established direction of travel is vital. There is a history of environmental standards being committed to and then withdrawn by previous Governments, which has understandably left industry reluctant to invest in preparing for new standards. However, since its announcement in 2019, the future homes standard has become a world-recognised framework, giving industry time to develop the necessary supply chains, skills and construction practices, and many developers are already building to higher standards in anticipation of its roll-out. Introducing conflicting legislation at this stage could create significant confusion and risks reversing the confidence and momentum that we have worked hard to establish.
Let me reassure the House that it is our firm intention to legislate for future standards later this year, as I have made clear, and to increase rooftop solar deployment significantly as a result. I understand that hon. Members and industry will need more details about what the standards will entail before they can arrive at a judgment as to their efficacy. Although we need to take the necessary time to get that right, my intention is to set out further details as soon as I am able—in the not-too-distant future, I hope.
Ruth Cadbury
I understand that 1.5 million Germans live in flats that have solar panels on their balconies. Will the Minister consider that as an option, in both new and retrofitted housing, as he looks at this important work?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, we will set out further details on the new standards in the not-too-distant future.
I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing this commendable Bill. Although the Government cannot support it for the reasons that I have given, we very much agree with the sentiment and ambition that have motivated it, and I recognise and appreciate all the dedicated work that I know he has put into it. For that reason, and assuming that he is willing, I would very much welcome an ongoing dialogue with him as the Government progress our work on the new standards, so that he has an opportunity to build on the important contribution that he has made in introducing this legislation, and to work closely with me and my officials prior to the introduction of our legislation so that his work and the views he has developed are properly incorporated and taken into account. On that basis, and given the widespread consensus on the objectives of the Bill, I hope that he will not seek to divide the House on its Second Reading.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the Minister for his generous words. Although I accept that I will not be cracking open a beer this evening to celebrate the Bill’s passing—perhaps a bottle of Corona—this has been an important debate and it has demonstrated consensus across the House, save for the local difficulties of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), which we should not go into again.
A range of views were expressed about the energy mix. My view is that we need a mix of energy generation that includes all the things discussed today. I am pleased to hear that the matter will be up for future discussion and I look forward to working on it with the Government—particularly on the important point of applying pressure to developers in a way that gets the pragmatic outcome that we all deserve. I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion.
Licensing Hours Extension Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to stand before the House to bring forward a Bill that makes an amendment to the Licensing Act 2003 that will support our vibrant hospitality sector and help our communities come together to celebrate momentous moments in our national life. I am sure I can add a few more puns to our deliberations today. The Bill will do that by changing the procedure for licensing hours extensions in England and Wales, so that the measures are subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure, as is currently the case.
Before proceeding in more detail, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) who brought forward a similar Bill in the previous Parliament. It enjoyed wide support across the House, only for it to fall when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. I am pleased to be carrying forward the work that she started. I would also like to thank everyone who supported the Bill, particularly those who have come to the House today and all those who attended my drop-in last week, in collaboration with the British Beer and Pub Association and UKHospitality.
It is important to start talking about our pubs and hospitality industry, something I can claim to know a thing or two about having had a 30-year career in it before coming to this place. Pubs and other venues are so much more than just businesses. They are often a focal point of our communities, from one generation to the next, and where we gather for life’s big and small moments. They are also fundamental to community cohesion. Two thirds of adults believe that our local pubs are vital to combatting loneliness and social isolation, according to a survey by YouGov in 2024.
It will come as a surprise to no one that I believe it is in Wrexham where the finest pubs and beers can be found. In no particular order, there are great pubs such as Saith Seren, the Acton Park, the Nags Head, the Red Lion in Marchwiel, the Crown in Llay, the Quarry Arms, the Buck in Bangor on Dee, the Cunliffe Arms, the George and Dragon in Brymbo, the Golden Lion in Coedpoeth and the Kings Mill. I will stop there.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend will now have, I think, at least 12 free drinks in his constituency! Does he agree with me about the importance of community-owned and operated pubs, and the additional social value they can provide to local communities and groups?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before Mr Ranger returns to his feet, I should obviously reference all the fantastic pubs in Sussex Weald!
Andrew Ranger
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for that intervention. I get the feeling we are going to hear a lot of pub names today. I named just a few of the 78 pubs that span my constituency. I will not comment on how many of them I have personally visited, possibly more than once.
Hospitality is also vital to tourism in Wrexham. It contributes nearly £120 million to our local economy, and I know that that will be similarly true in other Members’ constituencies. Since the arrival of two well-known Hollywood actors in Wrexham, we have welcomed visitors from far afield, eager to see the home of Wrexham AFC at the world-famous Racecourse Ground and, of course, to be pulled a pint by landlord Wayne at the Turf—there is another one. Accommodating the recent influx of visitors would never have been possible without pubs, cafes, restaurants and hotels stepping up to the plate. I know that that is the case across Britain, where dedicated staff work hard to deliver great service, food and drink to customers. I thank them for all they do, all year round.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides the ability for the Home Secretary to make an order extending licensing hours on a blanket basis, thereby allowing all licensed premises to open for longer at moments of important celebration.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Daily Telegraph recently visited my constituency to interview people to report on the status and progress of the new Labour Government. This piece was largely conducted by interviewing people residing within, or emerging from, the Moon Under the Water public house on Watford High Street. Has my hon. Friend considered the implications of these proposals on the ability to do such easy journalism in constituencies such as mine?
Andrew Ranger
I had not considered that, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Measures to extend hours provide the additional benefit of boosting the hospitality sector. Blanket licensing hours extensions introduced by the Secretary of State mean that businesses do not have to apply for individual extensions, should they wish to stay open longer to celebrate a particular event. Under normal circumstances, venues have to apply for a temporary event notice, which costs £21 for an application and involves considerable administrative work. The Bill will have the twofold impact of saving businesses time and money and meaning that local licensing authorities avoid the strain of being required to process large numbers of individual applications, possibly at very late notice.
Licensing hours extensions in England and Wales have been implemented on occasions, including royal weddings and jubilees and major sporting events, such as when the England men’s football squad reached the finals of the Euros in 2020 and 2024. These events bring us together to share in these occasions, whether that is their joy, the perhaps inevitable trauma when England lose on penalties again, or the anticipated jubilation when Wales reach the world cup final or when Wrexham reach the FA cup final. There is generally less of an urgent issue with royal events, for which more notice is generally available. The situation is much more complicated with sporting events, when there can be only a few days’ notice of a team reaching a semi-final or final. Unfortunately, that has led to significant occasions where it has not been possible for the Government to extend licensing hours.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
As we are in the business of name-checking, I am delighted to say that after a period of lamentable closure, the Half Moon and Seven Stars in Preston, the village I live in, will be reopening its doors at 5 o’clock tonight, celebrating, I think, Pubs Day today—neither the hon. Gentleman nor I will be there, unfortunately. More seriously, the implications of this Bill are considerable for an industry that has been under great pressure for a long time, particularly since covid. Is it not the case that it is extraordinary that these hoops have to be jumped through to do what most people would regard as normal and sensible?
Andrew Ranger
I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. What he raises is what the Bill seeks to deal with, basically. I join him in celebrating the reopening of the pub in the area where he lives.
There have been times when the Government have not been able to extend licensing hours for significant occasions, because the required secondary legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that both Houses of Parliament need to approve the measure following a debate. As such, if Parliament is in recess, it is simply not possible to introduce such measures. A recent instance of that was when the Lionesses reached the final of the world cup in August 2023, during a parliamentary recess. That meant it was not possible for the Government to extend the hours for that momentous match. As a result, pubs and hospitality venues missed out on an historic and unforgettable occasion.
With the continued sporting success of our national teams on the world stage, my hope is that we will see more occasions in the near future where the need for such measures arises, including such events as the upcoming FIFA men’s world cup in 2026 in North America, the 2027 rugby world cup in Australia, the FIFA women’s world cup in 2027 in Brazil, and the International Cricket Council T20 world cup in 2026 in India and Sri Lanka. In the interests of parliamentary sportsmanship, we all want to see successes for our Scottish and Northern Irish teams, too.
I am sure that Members across the House will recognise the tough hand that the pubs and hospitality sector has been dealt over recent years. At the end of July 2024, the total number of licensed premises in Britain was just 99,000, some 45,000 of which were pubs. The number of licensed premises has plummeted by 30% over the past 20 years, and we have lost 25% of pubs since 2003. We should use our role as parliamentarians in this place, and the opportunities that affords us, to speak on behalf of the industry, and it is for that reason that I believe it is important that we are here today. Hospitality is crucial for not only local economies, but local opportunity. The sector supports more than 1 million jobs and provides great career opportunities and flexible working in all parts of the UK. I know from first-hand experience that somebody can go from washing pots to running the place.
I take this opportunity to address any concerns that Members may have about any reduction in parliamentary scrutiny. In the past, these orders have attracted no controversy or dissent, and I expect that to remain the case. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any hon. Members objecting to an extension of licensing hours for, say, a royal wedding. For that reason, I believe that the negative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate. Let me be clear that this Bill does not take away the right to seek a debate. If any Members of the House or the other place objected to a certain extension, they would still have the ability to pray against it.
I also reassure the House that this amendment to the parliamentary process is the only change that this Bill seeks to make. It does not change the fundamental mechanics of how licensing hours extensions operate and are decided on. They will still be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of State and will be introduced only if the event in question is
“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
The word “exceptional” is important here. The Bill also does not alter the process for temporary event notices.
I believe that the Bill speaks for itself. It is a small amendment to the Licensing Act that will have a big effect by allowing for more efficient use of Parliament’s valuable time. It is a simple but significant measure, and I am grateful to all colleagues for their support today and in the lead-up to this debate. Let us raise a glass to our pubs and hospitality industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I will try to be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for bringing forward this important Bill. Pubs are incredibly important places for more than just enjoying a drink: they are at the heart of local communities up and down the country and bring people together in a truly unique way, which is ever more important in this modern world. The sector is also an integral part of our cultural heritage and a significant contributor to our economy, with almost 1 million people working in it.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I started my working life in licensed premises. From traditional pubs in Basildon and Billericay, such as the Chequers on Billericay High Street, to the more modern Beehive in Basildon, the bar at the Laindon Community Centre and the taproom at the Billericay Brewery, local pubs across our communities come in all shapes and sizes. Hard-working landlords, owners and staff make these local institutions what they are.
Our pubs have faced a tough time. During the last Parliament, I won the parliamentarian of the year award from the all-party parliamentary beer group for my work to push forward on the draught beer duty relief. This Bill is another small but important step to help our pubs. It is limited and sensible, and simplifying the process to allow pubs to open for key moments that bind our country together, whether it is a national celebration, a sporting event or a royal wedding, is a sensible step forward.
There are obviously bigger factors to decide whether pubs in this country stay open—this is not the day to go into VAT, national insurance and so on—but, through this Bill, the hon. Member for Wrexham presents the House with a real opportunity to make a meaningful difference and support our pubs in an immediate and practical way for the future. The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill is a targeted measure to allow pubs to remain open during those moments that can really instil national pride in our country and bring us together in our public houses. Let us support it and work towards a thriving and resilient pub sector.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on his private Member’s Bill, and I am proud to be a named supporter.
As a Welsh MP, I know that few things unite Welsh people like supporting our rugby and football teams, and love for our local pubs runs deep. Places such as the Mayquay in Kinmel bay, the Mason’s Arms in Denbigh and the Station in Colwyn bay are vibrant hubs of our communities, and they bring people together during moments of national significance. This Bill builds on that important role by ensuring that communities can gather for major events, while boosting local economies. I am sure that we have all heard from the hospitality sector in our constituencies about the challenges they have faced, particularly in recent years.
The hospitality industry is a fundamental part of Welsh culture, and it is vital to the economy of Clwyd North. However, pubs are closing at concerning rates across the UK, with the number of licensed premises down by 30% since 20 years ago. More needs to be done to encourage tourism in smaller pockets of the country, such as mine. In my view, supporting our pubs is a crucial step.
This Bill would bring together locals and visitors in north Wales during significant national sporting events, be they football, rugby or something else. I am proud to champion Welsh rugby union games at Parc Eirias in my constituency. I believe it is vital that we support such games in north Wales, and this Bill allows us more opportunity to celebrate successes together locally.
To be clear, this Bill is not about diminishing local authority control; it is about ensuring fairness and efficiency when large-scale events call for a national approach. Coming from a local authority background, I know that the provisions in the Bill would ease the pressures on councils and their licensing committees. It is a common-sense proposal that will unite communities, bolster the hospitality sector and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. I urge Members from across the House to back this Bill.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted to support this Bill, which has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger). He is a great champion of pubs and of the hospitality trade in our communities in north Wales.
As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for beer and the APPG for hospitality and tourism, I am very well aware of the vital role that pubs play in our local economies. In my constituency of Bangor Aberconwy, we are proud to have 119 pubs and three breweries. Like my hon. Friend, I have not visited all of them yet, but I am dedicated to working on it.
Pubs in Bangor Aberconwy support 2,000 local jobs, many of which are filled by young people getting their first taste of the world of work and learning valuable life skills, so it is my turn to do some name-checking. Pubs such as the Union in Bangor, the Albion in Conwy and the King’s Head in Llandudno play a vital role in our communities by bringing people together over a pint, and no more so than during national sporting events.
The 5 June 2022 was a very special night. It was the night that Gareth Bale scored a 34th-minute screamer to secure Wales’s place in the world cup finals for the first time since 1958. My whole family watched that match, and it was absolutely brilliant. There were Wales flags and kids everywhere, and, when he scored, there was beer everywhere too—I will never forget it. Although my national team’s fortunes might have taken a bit of a turn since then, I hope that the Bill will make it easier for pubs and clubs across Wales to bring people together all over again to watch Wales in the world cup finals in the USA in 2026. I thought that I might be pushing my luck with that, but given that my hon. Friend mentioned it, I think he will agree that it would be an event of exceptional national significance, which we would all want to support.
In all seriousness, this Bill will make it easier for pubs to bring people together, celebrate national events, support the sector and streamline the process, while staying true to the spirit of the Licensing Act. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will join me in supporting the Bill.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Northampton has a fantastic and varied hospitality sector, and this Bill will support local businesses across Northampton South. There are over 30 pubs in my constituency alone, and they employ nearly 1,500 people. I have been very fortunate to visit a number of them over the years, and I have now visited many on constituency visits, including the Deers Leap in Bellinge, which is the last community pub in the Eastern district; the Pomfret Arms, which has just reopened after being closed due to some disastrous flooding on the River Nene; the Britannia, where I pulled my first pint on camera—I think it is safe to say I will never make a good barman—and the White Hart in Great Houghton, which is part of the Everards brewery group. I started my career in construction by working for Pick Everard, which is owned by the Everard family, so the group is close to my heart.
Northampton is also home to a number of breweries: famously, Carlsberg—served here in the House—but also Phipps brewery, which serves pubs across our region. While I am talking about the pubs that will benefit from this Bill, I should give special mention to my local, the Artizan, which resides just over the border in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby).
The Bill may sound technical to my constituents, but at its heart it is about something far more important. The minor amendments proposed will mean that, whether Parliament is sitting or not, a decision can be made nationally to change licensing hours. As has been noted, it will enable hours to be changed during major sporting events, which is great news for the thousands of rugby and football fans in my town who follow Saints and Cobblers players when they are called up for national duty.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
We heard that licensing hours could not be extended for the Lionesses game because Parliament was not sitting. Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes in the Bill will give us the flexibility to ensure that, on such occasions, fans will be able watch games while supporting our pubs? We also have an opportunity today to progress legislation on the safety of fans in another way; my Bill is no. 15 on the list, and it would legislate to prevent—
Mike Reader
I am looking forward to my hon. Friend’s Bill—a much-needed piece of legislation.
The British Beer and Pub Association backs this change to the law because it knows that the industry needs it. And as a proud member, along with others in the House, of the all-party parliamentary beer group and the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I know that we need it, too. The Bill is about helping our pubs and communities to continue the proud tradition of celebrating British success together, and I fully support it.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the Bill—a small change, but one that will make a big difference to our communities. There are a few principal reasons why I support it. First, as others have said, it allows us to bring communities together at moments of national importance, making it a common-sense change that our communities would welcome. In many instances, they cannot believe the process that exists at the moment. Constituents across the country—certainly mine—would welcome this relatively minor change so that they can come together, support their local hospitality spots and mark those occasions.
Secondly, it will have a material positive impact on our local hospitality sector—pubs, but also restaurants and cafes. Our local businesses, particularly small businesses, seek flexibility above everything else, so that they can adapt and take up any opportunity for further income. They also want to play a part in our high streets and town centres. The change will bring that flexibility. I have 65 different hospitality spots in my constituency, which employ almost 1,000 people and make a contribution of more than £50 million. These small steps can make a big difference to them, and I am pleased to support them.
Finally, the Bill will relieve pressure on overstretched local authorities up and down the country. Councils talk about the burden of red tape, not just for local businesses but for themselves. The Bill will ensure not only that parliamentary time is spent well, but that existing pressures on council are relieved. For that reason, I very much support the Bill.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the Bill today. I also commend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) who led a version of the Bill in the previous Parliament before untimely events curtailed its progress. Speaking of untimely events, I think we can all agree on the collective disappointment when a pub is closed for or unable to show an important sporting event. I am sure hospitality venues up and down the country will welcome this legislation as providing certainty that they will be able to open for significant events.
At this point I must declare an interest as a regular patron of Stockton West’s pubs. We have some of the best—no, the best—pubs in the country, and I know that they always welcome the opportunity to stay open a little later when circumstances allow. As mentioned already, when the England women’s football team progressed to England’s first world cup final since 1966, the request to extend licensing hours came in late and during a parliamentary recess, which made it impossible to grant the request, denying many businesses the opportunity to extend their licences and many punters the chance to gather and show their early-morning support. Ensuring that the Government can make the change swiftly while retaining the necessary safeguards is a sensible and measured approach. I hope it will resolve the issues that Governments have faced in the past and allow changes to be made when needed.
It may be unlikely, but I remain hopeful that one day the mighty Stockton Town will take advantage of those changes with a future appearance, late in the evening, in a champions league final. While I might have to wait a while for that, in the meantime I express our support for the change and look forward to taking advantage of it during the next international tournament.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I feel quite intoxicated by the number of local licensed premises that have been mentioned this morning. It must have set some sort of record. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on his success in the ballot for private Members’ Bills—in the 20 years I have been a Member I have never had any success in it. I also congratulate him on his decision to pick this worthwhile topic as the subject for his Bill and I recognise his long career in the hospitality sector, as well as his clear expertise in the area. I am also incredibly impressed by the detailed knowledge Members have of licensed premises in their constituencies. I note the mention of the all-party parliamentary group on beer, which is obviously an important group and has a large and thriving membership.
I am grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members to the debate. I note the contributions from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who I think it is fair to say has a great deal of experience in pubs, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) who talked about the Welsh perspective. I admire the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) to visit all her local pubs. I enjoyed hearing about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) being the home of certain breweries. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) reminded us of the importance of the Bill’s proposals to restaurants, cafes and the high street, talking about the 65 hospitality sites in her constituency and the 1,000 people employed by them.
I am pleased to say that there has been a high degree of consensus on this measure, and I can say from the outset that the Government support the Bill and will do what we can to facilitate its passage here and in the other place. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) who led on this issue in the last Parliament, and managed to get her Bill through this place, although the general election intervened, unfortunately, before it could make its way on to the statute books.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, in his excellent speech, set out a compelling case for the Bill. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales for
“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
In practice, the Home Secretary determines whether an occasion meets those criteria on a case-by-case basis, and orders must specify the dates and times of the relaxations.
First, such orders bring about benefits to businesses, which can stay open for longer and thus increase revenue. Secondly, communities also benefit, as they are able to come together to celebrate important events. Thirdly, orders benefit licensing authorities, which do not have to process large numbers of licence extensions individually, often in a very limited time period.
Of course, it is for businesses to decide whether they wish to take advantage of extensions, but if they do wish to stay open, a blanket licensing extension automatically means that they do not have to give a temporary event notice to their local authority, which saves them time as well as the associated fee.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
As a former licensing board member, I welcome this Bill. Pubs in Falkirk would certainly have benefited from extensions during the Euro 2020 and Euro 2024 finals, as well as for the world cup final in 2023, and I declare an interest as a member of the tartan army. We need to recognise the impact that extensions have on hospitality workers in the Bill. Would the Minister endorse Unite’s “Get Me Home Safely” campaign and encourage businesses who are going to benefit from this extension to make sure that their staff get home safely?
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point about ensuring that those who work in hospitality are well protected and that getting them home is an important part of employers’ duty to keep their workforce safe. In the past, licensing hours have been relaxed for high-profile royal events, such as His Majesty the King’s coronation, Her Late Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday and her platinum jubilee, as well as the royal weddings in 2018 and 2011. Licensing hours have also been extended for sporting events, including the FIFA world cup 2014, the Euro 2020 final and the Euro 2024 semi-final and final. When the Government have proposed extensions to licensing hours, they have received cross-party support in both Houses and have been passed unopposed.
As we have heard, the Licensing Act specifies that any order is subject to the affirmative procedure and needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. The Bill proposes to amend the Licensing Act so that these orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. That will enable extensions to be implemented at short notice if necessary, including when Parliament is in recess. The current arrangements means that fast-paced extensions are simply not always possible. That is problematic in the context of sporting events, as the participation of national teams in the later stages of competitions is uncertain until the last moment.
I will provide an example to illustrate that. In 2021, the England men’s team made it through to the final of the delayed Euro 2020 tournament. With the help of the usual channels, the previous Government managed to push an order through Parliament in the three days between the semi-final and the final. To emphasise my earlier point, I note there was complete agreement across the House for the measure. In the summer of 2023, the England women’s team equally commendably reached the final of the world cup. However, that tournament took place in the summer when Parliament was in recess, so it was sadly not possible to extend licensing hours for the match. The Bill will rectify this issue and ensure that licensing hours can be extended at short notice when necessary, including when Parliament is in recess.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister not share my concern that this is a Bill of very limited ambition? Considering what she has said, surely there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area and for getting Parliament and the Government out of hospitality businesses’ hair.
Dame Diana Johnson
The measures before us are simple and straightforward, and the debate shows there is widespread agreement in the House about them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, in this case, not cause any problems to the Bill going forward.
The Bill will rectify the issues we have been discussing and streamline the parliamentary process, but it does not seek to alter the fundamental content of the Licensing Act 2003. However, the Government fully intend to plan ahead, so that wherever possible licensing hour extension orders in England and Wales can be brought in with time for full public consultation. The power in section 172 of the Licensing Act has, rightly, been used sparingly, and there is no intention to change the frequency with which the relevant powers are invoked.
As the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, it is important that I make clear that the police have generally been supportive of extensions for royal events, and that there have been no major increases in crime and disorder attributable to temporary extended drinking hours. However, the police have previously expressed some concerns about licensing extensions relating to sporting events, namely football. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the police have the opportunity to put forward their views, and we will always give due weight to any concerns raised before pressing ahead with an extension of licensing hours.
The Government recognise the importance of providing the police with ample time to put in place additional policing measures that may be necessary to minimise any potential increase in crime and disorder as a result of any temporary licensing hours extension. To that end, the Government remain firmly committed to continuing to plan in advance, wherever possible.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing forward the legislation and those who have spoken in support of it. It is a simple measure that will free up parliamentary time, help the Government to continue to support businesses and local authorities, and allow for celebrations of important events in the life of the nation. The Government fully support the Bill, and it is very important to get it passed before last orders.
Andrew Ranger
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today and for the broad consensus across the House. I thought I knew quite a lot of hospitality venues across the country, but I have learned about a few more today, which has been good. I will be sure to try to visit them, if possible. I thank the Minister for her support and her comments.
In summary, the Bill introduces a simple, straightforward measure that will enable us to cut out an unnecessary administrative burden for businesses, use parliamentary time better and support our hospitality sector. I trust that all Members from across the House will be able to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Ensuring that electors can vote is fundamental to our democracy. Although most of us choose to vote in person, many people face barriers that prevent them from doing so. In October 2023, the online absent voting application services were launched, giving voters the option to apply online for their postal or proxy vote for the first time. The services allowed people the choice to apply online or to use the existing option to apply through a traditional paper application, should they wish. The services are currently available for electors in Great Britain for United Kingdom Parliament elections and for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. In England, voters can also use the services to apply for a postal or proxy vote in all local elections.
The value of the new online absent voting application services was made very clear in the 2024 general election, not long after their launch. Data published by the Government show that over 1.5 million people in Great Britain made an application to vote by post or by proxy vote in the run-up to the general election last year. Between 22 May—the day the election was called—and the deadline for absent vote applications, 84% of postal vote applications and 93% of proxy vote applications were made using the online service. It is clear that electors found it effective, with over 90% of those using it during that period recording that they were satisfied with the service.
For voters in Scotland and Wales, the option to use the digital route for absent voting arrangements is limited. An elector in Scotland or Wales who wants a postal or proxy vote for a devolved Parliament or local election is still required to fill out a paper application form and physically send it in to be processed. The Bill would end the inconsistency and give voters in Scotland and Wales an equal choice in how they apply for an absent vote for use in the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and local elections.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Please be seated, both of you. Ms Gilbert, when you take an intervention, which is your choice, you must sit down.
Graeme Downie
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is vital to ensuring that everyone in Scotland, Wales and across the UK has every opportunity to vote in elections, and that we must continue to do all we can through schools and other means of encouragement to make sure that people fully understand the democratic process and that it is accessible at all times and in all ways?
Tracy Gilbert
Yes, I do agree. The Gould review and report made it clear that making voting accessible to everyone, particularly young and disabled people, is critical to encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
The Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru are both holding their parliamentary elections in May 2026, and it would be a great benefit to voters and electoral administrators alike if access to the online services were to be provided in time for those polls. This is not about forcing electors down a specific route to apply; all electors would continue to be able to make an absent vote application on paper if they wished. All the Bill would do is give them an additional option to apply online.
One consideration that I must emphasise is the importance of devolution. It is absolutely right that responsibility for local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru is devolved to those bodies. The Bill was carefully drafted to respect that, and the requirements for legislative consent in respect of relevant parts of the Bill will duly be followed. The Bill would give the Welsh and Scottish Governments powers to enable applications for postal and proxy votes for devolved elections to be made digitally through the new online services.
There are two further aspects to the Bill. First, regulations made under the Bill would require electors applying for an absent vote for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales to provide their national insurance number as part of their application. To be clear, that identity checking requirement is not the same as voter identification at polling stations, where photographic identification must be produced. Instead, it is an up-front check at the point the postal or proxy vote application is made, and simply requires the applicant to provide their national insurance number. The same requirement applies to absent voting applications for reserved elections and has been in place for applications to register to vote for devolved and reserved elections since 2014.
Secondly, the Bill would align the renewal cycles for devolved elections with the three-year cycles in place for reserved elections. Instead of having to refresh their signature every five years, electors would instead have to reapply for their postal voting arrangement every three years. That is done to avoid confusing electors and to ensure that the signature held on file is recent.
The measures in the Bill have been discussed with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, who have agreed to every element. Through the Bill, we can end the divergence and remove burdens on voters in Scotland and Wales. The Bill will remove inconsistencies across our democracy and ensure that it is modern, secure, transparent and fair. I commend the Bill to the House.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward this important piece of Member’s legislation. Having taken a Members’ Bill through the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago, I know how daunting and time-consuming the process is, so I am very grateful to all colleagues who have tabled Bills, allowing us to debate so many important subjects.
With turnout at elections dropping across the country, it is important that we as legislators do everything we can to encourage and facilitate voters. We all have a role to play, whether that is speaking to young people in our constituencies about the importance of their vote and their democratic rights being respected, or bringing forward legislation that makes the process easier for all. We have to take those responsibilities seriously—in fact, to grasp them with both hands.
Postal and proxy votes are a vital component of our elections, as they make voting possible for voters who are perhaps ill or on holiday, or whose working hours make it difficult to get to a polling station. As we have heard, since October 2023, the online absent voter application service has been available to voters who wish to vote by post and wish to apply online. The option to apply using a paper form is, of course, still available to anyone who wishes to use it.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing this Bill before the House. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) agree that the online service provides a vital resource for people with accessibility requirements—for those who are perhaps blind or partially sighted?
Patricia Ferguson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is something I am particularly aware of in my constituency, which—as I will talk more about later on—has an ageing demographic. The online service is vital.
The option to apply by post is available for UK parliamentary elections and for police and fire commissioner elections in England and Wales. Voters in England can also use the service to apply for postal or proxy votes in local elections, but voters in Scotland and Wales currently have more limited options, as a paper form is still required for absent voting applications for a devolved Parliament or local election. The Bill will remove that restriction for voters in Scotland and Wales, and will also make the conduct of elections possibly cheaper and certainly more manageable for electoral administrators.
In Scotland, we use three different voting systems, which in and of itself can be complicating for voters. We ask them to vote by first past the post for elections to this place; we ask them to vote using the additional member system for elections to the Scottish Parliament; and we ask them to vote by single transferable vote for local authority elections. In spite of the fact that some of those methods have been in place since 1999, I have encountered voters over the piece who still find that confusing, so anything we can do to take away any complexity or complication from the process of voting must be very welcome.
The Bill is also respectful of the devolution settlement —something that is very important to me as a former Minister for Parliament in the Scottish Government. This Bill seeks to give the power to enact those parts of the system that are devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but importantly, it also allows enough time for the process to be introduced in time for the next round of Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections in 2026.
Euan Stainbank
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that many young voters—especially first-time voters—at the most recent election in 2024 will believe that they have already signed up for a postal or proxy vote, and that this Bill will be the first step in allowing people to permanently register for all elections in Scotland and Wales online?
Patricia Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was rather spoilt for choice. I absolutely agree: young people will think that. Young people are particularly used to signing up online and think that once they have done something online, it is probably there in perpetuity. In most cases, they are correct; in this, they are not. The Bill will help to resolve that issue.
I mentioned that we are going to have Scottish Parliament and Welsh parliamentary elections in 2026, but in Scotland, those elections will be quickly followed by local authority elections in 2027, so it is very important that the Bill is enacted in time for those elections to use this new system. This is a crucial step towards ensuring a consistent and straightforward voting process for people in Scotland and Wales.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—and other Members for not asking her to give way at the same time. During the most recent general election campaign, an awful lot of time was spent explaining to voters exactly which elections they were signed up for, which ones they had postal votes for, where they had to sign up again, whether that could be done online, which confirmation they had to wait for and various other things. That caused extra complexity for returning officers and deputy returning officers in Fife, where there were many conversations, wasting a lot of time for candidates of all parties, to ensure that we all understood the process. Does she agree that this will make the process much simpler for everyone?
Patricia Ferguson
I agree that this will make it simpler. I think back to a number of conversations I heard or had on the doorstep on the issue. I thought I had begun to get my head around the situation, but I then heard colleagues who were knocking doors with me trying to explain it to citizens on the doorstep, and it became clear to me that perhaps I had not explained it properly to them. We all have a role to play, and anything we can do to make this process more obvious, more accessible and simpler will be very helpful.
I know from last year’s general election, Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; old habits die hard—how important postal and proxy votes are to voters in my communities of Glasgow West, which had the largest number of registered postal voters in the city of Glasgow. As I said earlier, that perhaps reflects the ageing demographic in parts of my constituency. Voters should never be hindered in casting their vote by an overly complicated system, and this Bill is a major step forward in reducing that complexity. It is vital that every eligible voter has easy access to the democratic process, and this Bill will help to achieve that.
I was first elected in 1999 to another Parliament, and over the years I have worked with many returning officers and seen for myself the work that they and their staff do, year in, year out. Even when there are not elections on, they are preparing, and ensuring that electoral registers are up to date and the processes for postal and proxy votes are in place. I thank all the returning officers I have worked with over the years and their staff for everything they do to make the process as efficient as possible. Hopefully, today, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and her Bill, we will help them to make that process even better.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) to ensure that we debated this issue today. We must continue to break down the barriers to voting, to ensure increased engagement with and turnout at every form of election in all the nations of the UK. In my first speech in the House, I referred to the issue of turnout at the general election. We all have a duty to look, across all the systems we have in place, at how we can increase engagement with the political process, and with voting.
I am acutely aware of the importance of increasing engagement with our elections. My constituency of Glasgow North saw a turnout of around 50% at the last general election. That may have been in part due to a summer election in a constituency that contains a large amount of student accommodation, at which people are registered but not present. It remains incumbent on the House to continue to look at the electoral system to promote greater engagement in every election.
The Bill is important for making it easier to engage with our democracy for groups in Scotland and Wales who face barriers of accessibility to the voting system. I have mentioned the summer election happening while students were away, but when they are in student accommodation, they are away from their home, which may be where they are registered. Encouraging their access to proxy and postal voting is important in engaging them.
Graeme Downie
The point my hon. Friend makes about students during the summer is absolutely correct. Did he find on the doorstep, during the most recent general election, isolated incidents of families in Scotland having gone away on holiday, as it was during the Scottish school holidays, which are different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) would help us to deal with that problem, as well as helping to deal with the issue in places where there are increased numbers of students?
Martin Rhodes
I agree with my hon. Friend. An issue raised during the election was that the period for applying did not allow much time for many families to apply who had booked to go away at the beginning of the school holidays. The Bill would make online applications easier and speedier.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks passionately about his constituency, but the Bill benefits us not just in the summertime. My constituency has a by-election for Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead next week on 23 January—I will not mention our candidate’s name, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it is wintertime; the days are short, and it is cold. A lot of people, particularly older people, would benefit from the ability to vote by post or proxy when the weather is so cold. Does he agree that people would also benefit from the measures in wintertime?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that there are benefits from the Bill in all seasons. I realise that I have now set Members the challenge of intervening to speak about spring and autumn. In winter, there are fewer daylight hours and it is colder, and people may not want to go out in the dark. The Bill would make it easier for them to access postal and proxy voting.
There was reference in an earlier intervention to those who are blind or partially sighted and use screen readers. Applying online is much easier for them; it lifts barriers to their involvement and engagement in the electoral process.
Those are just some of the groups who would benefit if we passed this legislation, modernised access to the electoral system for the devolved Parliaments, and provided the ability to introduce such measures for local government elections, too.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on bringing in the Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) agree that the Bill demonstrates that Scotland’s Labour MPs are ensuring that both of Scotland’s Governments are working effectively for them?
Martin Rhodes
I certainly agree that it is important to see the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government working together.
Patricia Ferguson
On that point, is my hon. Friend as saddened and surprised as I am to see not a single SNP Member here? It strikes me that if they claim to be Scotland’s party, they need to be here to talk about legislation that affects Scotland.
Martin Rhodes
My hon. Friend asks whether I am saddened and surprised; I am saddened.
It is important that while we make it easier to apply online for postal and proxy votes, we do not take away any ability to apply via paper, and I welcome the fact that the legislation does not do that. Many do not have access to digital means of applying, so it is welcome that the Bill creates additional ability to apply.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that people have a number of ways to access the democratic process, and that no one should be locked out of exercising their democratic right purely through a point of process?
Martin Rhodes
I absolutely agree, and it is important that we look to increase the ways in which people can access the voting system, because for many, digital is the usual way to apply for services, whether private or public. That is what they expect and their default. Similarly, there are groups of people for whom applying on paper, in writing and so on is their normal way of interacting with a whole range of services, whether private or public. It is important that all people find a way that they are comfortable with to access the electoral system.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
We all agree that we need better systems and support for ensuring increased participation in democratic processes and elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill makes participation in elections more effective and easier, and makes the application process more reliable, which has the potential to drive up turnout at elections and improve our democracy?
Martin Rhodes
I agree with my hon. Friend—I am not used to agreeing with so many people. It seems unusual, but I will carry on. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and if we can increase participation by looking at the processes in place, we should welcome that. It is important to look at all the systems.
However, simply changing the systems and processes for accessing the voting system will not in itself reduce disengagement with the political process. There are bigger and wider issues than just the form of application, so while I very much welcome the Bill as a means by which we can help people to access the political process, we all need to think about how to engage people across our countries of the United Kingdom with it.
To conclude, the challenge we face across this House is finding new, more effective ways of engaging people and allowing them to fully participate in decision-making. I welcome this Bill as one small, but useful and effective, way in which we can achieve that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing the Bill, and for the work that has gone in to it, which I welcome, particularly as a Welsh MP for a rural constituency.
Thinking about the history of parliamentary reform, my hon. Friend is a modern-day Chartist woman. She is a fantastic woman in this place, and she is absolutely right that voting—the mechanism by which people exercise their electoral preference or express their sense of civic duty—is the backbone of our democracy. Ensuring that electors can exercise that democratic right is essential, and an important part of it is recognising that many people face barriers that prevent them from voting in person.
Thanks to the online absent vote application services enabled by changes in the Elections Act 2022, voters have the option to apply online for a postal or proxy vote in Great Britain for UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, and local elections in England. If electors do not wish to apply online for an absent voting arrangement, the existing option to apply via a traditional paper application remains available to them. These services allow people to choose whichever route they find easier.
However, as has already been pointed out, there is an anomaly for voters in Wales and Scotland, which limits the extent of the digital application option for absent voting arrangements. While electors living in Scotland or Wales can apply online for a postal or proxy vote for general elections, they cannot do so for devolved parliamentary or local elections. I feel very strongly about that. In the Senedd parliamentary reform is happening and a great deal of change will come about, and I feel that there should be equality for everyone in the United Kingdom in respect of devolution.
Graeme Downie
I think we both hope that this fantastic Bill is passed today and continues its parliamentary journey, but will my hon. Friend join me in urging both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Senedd to do all that they can to provide additional education and accessibility so that everyone can access the voting arrangements correctly?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I welcome that intervention, especially because we are talking about many groups who do not access their right to vote. I am proud of the fact that in Wales and Scotland people can vote from the age of 16. I used to be a schoolteacher, and I know how important it is to have that democratic conversation with young people so that they understand their rights. It is important for a strong message to come from both the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Government, because their voices need to be heard, and the same applies to people who are unable to vote because of a disability. It is incumbent on our other Parliaments to proceed with what is a very big piece of work.
As it stands, my constituents in Gower—a rural constituency containing many remote areas—who wish to vote via post or proxy in the upcoming Senedd elections in 2026 will still be required to fill out a paper application form and physically send it to be processed. That is time-consuming and people do not always do it. This lack of parity is unfair to electors in Wales and Scotland who should have the option of a digital route for absent voting arrangements in their devolved parliamentary or local elections. It is also not good for overall democratic health. We know that some people are deterred from voting if they encounter barriers in the run-up to an election or polling day.
That inconsistency presents a barrier to voting that would, in some cases, contribute to people not voting at all. I welcome the Bill because it seeks to end that disparity and give voters in Wales and Scotland equal choice in how they can apply for an absent vote in devolved and local elections. With both the Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament elections coming up in May 2026, we should be doing all that we can to remove disincentivising barriers and to make the process of electors exercising their right to vote as smooth as possible.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to encourage political participation across the UK, to maintain our reputation as one of the world’s strongest democracies?
Tonia Antoniazzi
That really is true. In the seven years I have been in this place, I have found that people sometimes shut the door in my face and say, “You’re all the same.” There is a growing disrespect for parliamentarians, which I find hard to understand. Our democracy is the backbone of the United Kingdom and of our devolved countries, and I think it is really important for us to be positive and engaging and to let people know that their voices are heard in this place, whoever they voted for.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for how she has worked on the Bill. I understand that the measures within it have been discussed with Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and that is a wonderful way to make change happen. The Bill is also very carefully drafted to emphasise the importance of devolution and to respect the devolved nations’ responsibility for their local and devolved parliamentary elections. The manner in which she has approached that, as well as the Bill itself, firmly aligns with the Government’s intention to re-set the relationship between central and local governments as partners in delivering better outcomes for the communities that we, collectively, represent. The Government have already made welcome significant progress regarding that re-set. They have also noted how supporting the sector to modernise democratic engagement is key to that re-set. That is what the Bill does.
My constituents would really welcome the choice that the changes in the Bill would grant them in local and devolved elections. I thank the returning officers in Swansea and Gower for their hard work and for the even more hard work they will have with the upcoming Senedd reform in 2026. My constituents welcome the Bill and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the House.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on bringing forward this important Bill. The inconsistency that currently exists between elections in England, Wales and Scotland is confusing and makes no sense—either for voters or for anybody else. As Labour Members have said, we all have a duty to do everything we can to encourage participation in our democracy, particularly at a time of alienation and when trust is low. The figures shared by my hon. Friend about the number of people who registered to vote online before the general election illustrate that point. There is clearly a demand. People want to use digital systems, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) said. People are used to interacting with systems and processes in that way, so that makes it very important.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
As a fellow Welsh MP, I have to say that people are incredulous, when I speak to them on the doorstep, at the complexity of the system in Wales. A digital option is unavailable to them to participate in such important local and national elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the maximum opportunity to vote in all elections in Wales and Scotland, in whichever way they choose, is crucial to create equality across the UK?
Claire Hughes
I absolutely agree. This democratic deficit really needs to be addressed. It is very important that that is done before the next Senedd and Scottish elections in 2026.
As other Members have said, there are real public transport challenges in largely rural constituencies such as mine. We also suffer a lot, would you believe, with bad weather, so having the options of postal votes and proxy votes is very important. We also have the university in Bangor and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North also said, having different options for students and young people is particularly important.
There are very many reasons to make it easier for people to vote by proxy and by post. As I said, it is urgent. I hope all Members see that and back the progression of the Bill.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing the Bill forward. We heard from her and from other hon. Members about the difficulties that voters in Scotland and Wales face due to the fact that, following the passage of the Elections Act 2022, the equivalent powers were not introduced for England and Wales.
I have been campaigning in elections since 1979. I hugely enjoy the interaction with voters, despite being shouted at occasionally. It is so important. We are linking their concerns for their communities and their families with our role as actual or potential elected representatives. The bit that gels all that together is the process of voting. The process of voting needs to be made as simple, easy and accessible as possible to everybody, so that everyone has equal access.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s report demonstrates that only 50% of blind and partially sighted people were satisfied with their experience of voting at the last general election. Does she hope, as I do, that the Bill will make the process smoother, make it easier for people to apply for absent votes, and make some much-needed improvement on that figure?
Ruth Cadbury
I know that the RNIB has campaigned for many years to improve accessibility to elections for people with sight loss. I do not know whether this Bill will actually make the change that my hon. Friend desires, because it brings the Scottish and Welsh systems up to the standard that we have in England, and I know that the RNIB is not yet satisfied with the process. If people have chosen not to have a postal vote, a lot depends on whether the polling clerks at the election centre feel confident enough to help those with sight loss to vote if they do not want to do so with a family member, neighbour or friend.
I have stood as a candidate in 11 elections, and I have won every one of them. I have also campaigned in many more general elections, council elections, by-elections and London Assembly elections, and I have helped colleagues in by-elections across the country. When I first started, there was no such thing as online voter registration—in fact, there was no online anything. I attended statistics classes at university, and computing then involved stacks and stacks of cards—I do not know how many Members remember that. It took another 15 years, roughly, for most of us to understand what the internet was. It has only been since 2023, I think, that one can register online for a postal or proxy vote. We cannot underestimate the importance of being able to register for a postal or proxy vote with ease.
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about accessibility and the need for proxy votes. I did some research on this issue prior to today, and I discussed with a constituent the difficulty that people with autistic spectrum disorder experience when voting. They have a lot of anxiety about going into polling stations and the potential complications that they face when making sure that they are able to exercise their democratic voice. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do everything we can to support those with autistic spectrum disorder, to make voting as accessible as possible?
Ruth Cadbury
Absolutely. Many neurodiverse people find the process of voting difficult, and that is one example of why postal voting is so valuable to so many people.
Up until 2001, one needed approval from either a doctor or an employer to be able to get a postal vote. People could not just say that they would prefer, or would find it easier, to vote at home; they had to justify that, which was easier said than done. There were huge discrepancies in whether doctors could sign off such a request, and in whether employers were prepared to say that an employee would be away and unable to vote in person on election day. We have seen a huge improvement. Only 2% of voters had postal votes before the change, but the figure had grown to almost 20% by the time of the 2010 general election. We have, over the years, made postal voting easier.
The variation is quite high: 50% of voters in Sunderland vote by post, while only 8% of voters in Lewisham do so. The most important thing of all—and why postal votes make such a difference to engagement in our democracy—is that 80% of people who have a postal vote use it. Would we not like that kind of overall voter turnout? That is hugely important.
Euan Stainbank
My hon. Friend is making a good point about turnout. Does she agree that although there may be multiple reasons why someone might not choose to come out and vote, ease in accessing a ballot should never be one of them?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree. That is why voters in Wales and Scotland need equality of access with voters in England, and I hope that the Government will support the Bill. In 2023, the then Government launched online voting applications for postal and proxy voting. If I have read the explanatory notes correctly, that is the discrepancy that the Bill is set to address.
We do not knock on doors only at elections—of course, we cannot get anybody to sign up for postal votes for the next election during the short campaign period. Most of us, and I hope all of us on the Labour Benches, are door knocking week in, week out, not just for the next election—and sometimes not even for the next election—but because, as elected representatives and community and party activists, we need and want to engage with our communities. Part of that conversation is, “I find it difficult to vote,” “I can’t vote,” or, “I missed the last vote because of this.” That is where we ask, “Well, what about a postal vote?”
Steve Race
Does my hon. Friend believe that the Bill will benefit the older voters we speak to on the doorstep, many of whom are digital natives and actively use online technology? Older voters in Scotland and Wales would, I am sure, like to use technology in the same way as older voters in England.
Ruth Cadbury
That is absolutely right. We must listen to older voters’ needs. Some are digitally excluded, which is why it is always a good idea to have paper copies of the form to give them, and to tell them what they need to do to get that application off. Others are not digitally excluded and, like my mother, have smartphones and do more and more things online. One thing that we have been doing, as I am sure have many colleagues, is having a QR code to hand, so that voters can put their phone over the QR code, which immediately opens up the form. Then, we say, “Goodbye and thank you very much”—we obviously do not have anything to do with their completion of the form. That makes it easier.
The problem with handing over a form or saying, “I suggest you go on the Government website,” is that, with the best will in the world, many people really do want to apply for a postal vote but life gets in the way, as it does for us all. Applying is not the most important thing when, say, the baby is crying, dinner is about to burn, or someone is late for work. We have found in England that the easier the technology, the more people apply for postal votes. As I have just said, if they have applied for and got that postal vote, they are more likely to use it. A lot of what I am saying also applies to proxy votes.
Patricia Ferguson
It was said earlier that the fact that last year’s general election occurred during the Scottish school holidays meant that, in the chaos and confusion that happens in most households preparing to go on holiday, voting fell off the agenda for a lot of people who had perhaps thought about applying for a postal vote but not got around to doing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, were another election like that to be called, the opportunity to do that chore by post might make a difference to a lot of people?
Ruth Cadbury
We were all aware and deeply conscious of how many Scottish voters were disadvantaged in the July 2024 election. As Scottish summer holidays start some weeks earlier than in England, many Scottish voters were disenfranchised. The Bill in itself will not change that, but like a broken record, I go back to the point that the easier we make applying for postal and proxy votes, the more people will do it, not when an election is imminent but at some point well before that. Then they will not be disenfranchised.
The Bill will make life a lot easier for electoral registration officers in Wales and Scotland, who have a terrible time dealing with two different sets of elections. Scottish and Welsh voters are able to apply for general election votes in the same way as English voters, but for some reason—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—a different application form is needed for the different levels of election, such as the Scottish Parliament election versus the UK general election.
Dr Arthur
It is more confusing than that. It is actually the same form with several different options, which explains the different scenarios. I recently applied for a postal vote, because there is a by-election in my constituency next week, and it is not a straightforward process. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is even more confusing than having two separate forms?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just confusing for the voter; it is more difficult for the already stressed-out EROs. They have a difficult enough job, they often do not have enough colleagues with them, and if they do not do their job absolutely perfectly, there is the potential for mistakes to be made, which becomes challengeable. I endorse the Bill, because apart from anything else I want to make sure that every voter in every area gets an equal chance to apply for and get a postal vote or a proxy vote.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
First, I wish to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for nicking his point in an intervention earlier. In mitigation, I am sure he will agree that it is hardly likely to rank particularly highly in the list of rude interactions between people from Dunfermline and Falkirk.
I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on fair elections, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing the Bill. Like many hon. Members I am sure, for six months last year—all the way up to 9.30 pm on polling day on a remarkably damp 4 July—I was out chapping on doors, speaking to thousands of Falkirk residents, discussing their views and seeking to persuade them of the benefits that Labour representation could bring to the issues they cared about. I have been doing that sort of thing since I was 15, which despite what some might say about my experience elsewhere has made me a bit of a canvassing veteran. I have stood in two elections and won both of them—I have nine to go to match the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
Fellow experienced canvassers will know that conversations on the doorstep can often stray from the alleged topic, and the question can change from why the person should vote in a particular way to how they can access their vote. That is often the case when you are the first person to chap on their door to talk to them about politics for a while, or perhaps ever. My team and I faced countless questions during the election about where the polling station is; whether people need to bring their polling cards; for the first time six months ago, whether they needed to take ID to the polling station; and how they could apply for a postal or proxy vote, especially in Scotland because it was during the start of the Scottish summer holidays, as colleagues have mentioned. I may swear by my powers of persuasion on the doorstep, but I have no doubt that in some of the elections I have participated in, the time it takes to apply for a postal or proxy vote has deterred some people, potentially even those who I thought to be guaranteed voters for Stainbank or alternative Labour representatives in Falkirk.
The Bill would provide easier access by giving powers to implement the same additional online registration option that was open to Scottish and Welsh voters in the 2024 elections for local and devolved elections, as in England. Looking at the substance and the context of the Bill, I am in some confusion about why legislative consent was not passed over as part of the Elections Act 2022. I would definitely be interested if anyone can provide some clarity on that. Currently, if someone wanted to do it in a oner and register for a postal and proxy vote for all elections for which they could cast a ballot in Scotland or Wales, they would have to do so on a paper application, despite the online option being available for a general election. That shows the contradiction that the Bill seeks to solve.
I hope we all agree that we should be making the right to vote in our elections as easy as possible, and we should recognise that the responsibility sits with the devolved Governments for devolved and local elections. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith on seeking to correct that with the urgency that it warrants before the 2026 Scottish and Welsh elections, and the 2027 Scottish local elections.
As a former councillor, like many colleagues who have spoken today, I remain concerned that turnout in local elections in Falkirk and across Scotland has been remarkably poor. It was 44.8% in 2022 across Scotland, down 2.1% from the previous election and nearly 10% from the first time we used the single transferable vote system in Scottish local elections in 2007. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are many reasons cited by those on the doorstep for choosing not to vote in election. Difficulties accessing a ballot paper should never be one of those.
It is a well-known fact that those who register for a postal ballot are far more likely to turn out. While researching my speech I found that that is true in my seat. According to the Falkirk Valuation Joint Board, 81% of those registered for a postal vote in Falkirk in the 2024 election cast a ballot. Standardising the process for postal and proxy votes in UK, Scottish and local elections will ease applications. Importantly, the consistency that that will provide the electorate will give people confidence to register and use their vote time and again, especially first-time voters in the recent 2024 election who may be under the misapprehension that they have already competently registered for a postal and proxy vote for every election, including devolved and local elections.
Gill German
I am a mum to not one but two 16-year-olds, who I am pleased to say are newly eligible to vote in both the local and Senedd elections in Wales. Because of that, I know at first hand how all-encompassing exam periods are. Elections often occur at these times. Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing young people to apply for a postal or proxy vote online—a way that will be most familiar to most of them—is important to get around that issue?
Euan Stainbank
I wholeheartedly agree. I am a fantastic example, as I was sitting my higher English exam the first time I voted as a 16-year-old in 2016 in Scotland. Given the exam stress and other considerations in young people’s lives and that online is the presumptive option to register for everything, it should be available to them. It will be essential in driving up turnout. We should extend that to UK elections as well, for the benefit of consistency.
The impression from the Electoral Commission report on voting systems and trust in voting is that, although trust remains high in the integrity of the electoral process in the UK, an increasing proportion of the electorate are concerned that our elections are not well run. Consistency, especially avoiding the appearance of arbitrary difference in the administration of elections, is an important feature to rebuild that trust.
Elections in the devolved nations of the United Kingdom can often be unduly different: for example, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in Scotland for their MSP, but not for their MP in a general election. Members may be able to guess my age from this: I was permitted to vote for my MSP in the 2016 Scottish parliamentary election, but in the 2017 general election the following year I was unable to cast a ballot for my MP. With the passage of the Bill, I hope to see the options available to those in England extended to Scotland and Wales. Votes at 16 is an area for another day, and I hope that this Parliament will choose to converge with Wales and Scotland on that.
This inconsistency in voter eligibility in our electoral systems in Scotland led to concern that there would be a depression in turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds in the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections. That fear was ingeniously and partially cured by an examiner at the Scottish Qualifications Authority who, as part of a higher English exam scheduled on the exact same day as the elections, included an article by Julia Hartley-Brewer with a headline stating that letting 16-year-olds vote would be a disaster. To my delight, my pals were indignantly flocking to the Dobbie Hall polling station to exercise their democratic rights before discussing how well we had done in the exam that day. I doubt that anybody is forthcoming with an article saying that letting people register for a postal or proxy vote online would be a disaster. This is an inconsistency that we should seek to fix now.
Access to proxy and postal voting is not a theoretical concern. When the former Prime Minister called the election in the early days of the Scottish summer holidays, I and my team had to field countless questions about which postal and proxy voting applications were available, and the turnout in particular Scottish seats reflected that. The Electoral Commission report found that in Scotland, confusion, late postal ballot arrival and the timing of the election disproportionately impacted turnout. That was due to direct interaction with confusing systems —people going away on their holidays were unable to get a postal or proxy vote, or did not know how to do that—and the media commentary around it. Standardising the way we do this across the United Kingdom and across the various elections would help remarkably. This is an arbitrary difference that we should seek to resolve.
In conclusion, the Bill would allow online registration for postal and proxy voters in Scottish, Welsh and local elections, which simply would make life easier for the electorate, give folk another option and hopefully drive more people to the polls, whichever way they choose to vote in 2026, 2027 and beyond.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward this wonderful Bill. It is important to say that this Bill is fundamentally about making it easier to vote in Scotland and Wales. It would improve the situation for residents in those areas by allowing them to vote by post and proxy in a way that they would not necessarily be able to at the moment.
I grew up in south Wales, so this issue is close to my heart. I was consistently impressed when I was growing up by the work of the Electoral Commission, or as it would rightly be known in Wales, Y Comisiwn Etholiadol. I must declare that I had a special closeness to the Electoral Commission, because during the noughties my mother was the leader of the Wales office, so the fact that I had great respect for its work is maybe a little close to home.
In the 2000s, the commission had a great advert on television, and it stuck with me. Maybe I was paying a little more attention to adverts put out by the Electoral Commission than many of my teenage colleagues at the time, but this wonderful advert had a series of vignettes of cartoon characters, with two guys going about their daily life and talking about various issues they were coming up against. One of the guys was saying, “You should make sure you vote, man,” and the other one kept saying, “I don’t do politics, me.” They would go into, say, a supermarket, and the guy who says he doesn’t do politics says, “The price of milk’s too high.” The next scene is in a pub, and he says, “The price of beer is too high.” The whole message of this advert was that politics is in everything. It is really important that we, as politicians, drive that message home always. We should be doing everything in our power to expand and improve access to politics. That is why the Bill is really important.
Those adverts—and there were many put out by the Electoral Commission at the time—were focused on making sure that people had access to voting and were going out and voting. I was not so lucky as to get the vote at 16 in Wales—I was too old for that—but when I got the opportunity to vote for the first time aged 19, I remember getting multiple phone calls from my mum shortly before saying, “You make darn sure you sign up for a postal vote in advance,” because I was at university and had to make sure I was signed up.
I am a big proponent of making sure that young people have access to voting and that we do everything we can to encourage them to vote. We should support all young people to vote more easily, and the measures in the Bill are really important in that work. We need to be removing the barriers.
Graeme Downie
Although my mum did not work for the Electoral Commission, she was a polling counter both at polling stations during the day and at the count, including for the very first Scottish Parliament election; I remember vividly picking her up from the count at about 5 o’clock in the morning, having stayed up all night to watch it. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to improve the smooth running of elections in this country, we must support more people to participate in those vital roles, which involve very long shifts at polling stations followed by the counts, which can go on much longer? Anything we can do to support them would be much appreciated.
Adam Thompson
Of course, I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend just said. I am sure that many Members—probably all right hon. and hon. Members—agree that the polling clerks and all the attendants on election day are a vital part of our democracy, and they have our thanks for their work, year in, year out, in all elections.
As I was saying, I am a great fan of doing everything we can as a Government and as Parliament to improve access to elections and to remove barriers. Digital measures of the sort in the Bill are a really important part of that. We have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the importance of breaking down the barriers in the way of those who are digitally illiterate and giving everyone access to a way of signing up for postal and proxy votes online. I also advocate for more education in schools.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am in the fortunate position of being the neighbouring MP, so you may well be familiar with the school I mention, which is just down the road from your constituency. Will you commend Langley Mill academy for its great work to raise awareness among young people of British values and our voting system, and sadly for putting a photo of me on the overhead projector when I visited? They asked me lots of insightful questions, which really showed that they are learning about our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind the hon. Member that the words “you” and “your” refer to me, and I am not the person she intervened on.
Adam Thompson
I thank my neighbour and dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). I certainly agree with her and commend the school in Langley Mill. I was her predecessor as the Labour candidate in Amber Valley in 2019, and I know the fantastic work the school is doing. I am a great proponent of visiting schools. I went to two last week: Ladywood primary school in Kirk Hallam, and Saint John Houghton Catholic voluntary academy, which I know my hon. Friend attended as a pupil many years ago. I am a fan of school visits, and as a trained former teacher, I find it one of the most enjoyable parts of my job. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are similarly strong advocates.
I was talking about the importance of better education in school, breaking down the barriers to opportunity and ensuring that all our pupils get access to the knowledge they require to engage fully in our political system. I remember the few short hours when I was a pupil at Llanishen high school in north Cardiff when the headteacher, Mr Robert Smyth, came in and taught my class about politics. He was given just four or six hours over the five years of my time in state education. It is disappointing that we have such a small amount of politics education available to pupils in state schools. I have long been a great advocate of expanding the time given to that. It is one of the things I greatly enjoy doing as a Member of Parliament—joining as many schools as possible to impart to pupils the knowledge that I have gained in this place and through my experiences.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Does my hon. Friend agree that education in schools is absolutely central to making sure that Chambers across the country start to look like the communities they represent and to achieving 50:50?
Adam Thompson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and, of course, I completely agree with everything she says. I firmly believe that education, skills development and all the aspects we have just been discussing should be core to all of our policies. Indeed, my previous role prior to coming to this place was as an educator at the University of Nottingham, where I taught degree-level apprenticeships in electromechanical engineering. I am a great advocate of the apprenticeship system, and I am very pleased by the Government’s commentary over the past few months about expanding skills provision across the board.
As I have said repeatedly throughout this speech, it is really important that we advocate for these points as much as possible. I am sure that colleagues across the House will be au fait with the comments we often receive on the doorstep. Like many colleagues, I will be out knocking doors tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon, and very often people say how difficult they find it to access our political system. Many areas such as mine have multiple tiers of government: councils, local government, mayors and MPs. We are talking about devolution at the moment and maybe reorganising some of those systems, and I think there is an opportunity to simplify them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about simplifying systems. My father applied for a postal vote because he was taking advantage of the early Scottish holiday and was going to be away on 4 July. When he tried to access a postal vote to vote for me, he found that the council could not recognise him, yet as he pointed out, it had been able to collect his council tax for some years. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if we are going to increase the number of postal and proxy votes, we must also have better systems on the other side to short-circuit those problems?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Since the vote is private, who knows how the hon. Gentleman’s father actually voted?
Adam Thompson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree. It is important that when these difficult scenarios arise, we are able to account for them and have systems in place to deal with them.
To conclude, we have had a really interesting discussion today. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith are very valuable and will allow a whole group of extra people to access our electoral system, which is complex. The Bill will allow us to simplify it, homogenise systems between England, Wales and Scotland, and generally improve things for voters across the country.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing this valuable debate and Bill before the House today.
As has been made clear by many speakers, for as long as we have known it, there has been a weird hotchpotch of different regulations concerning different elections in the UK. We have different voting systems for different elections; we have parliamentary boundaries that take little account of the boundaries for local elections; and we have age differences for different elections in different parts of the country, with votes at 16 in some parts of the country for some elections. We have voter ID regulations. We have the single transferable vote, top-up systems and first past the post. That whole hotchpotch of different regulations needs to be simplified and standardised.
Graeme Downie
The stramash that my hon. Friend refers to around electoral systems is added to in Scotland, where initially the Scottish Parliament had a four-year term. That was extended—temporarily at first—to a five-year term to take account of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 that was enacted in this place. That has not yet been mended; it now seems to have become a five-year term, which causes additional confusion that I am not sure has been properly and adequately explained to the Scottish people. Does my hon. Friend agree that that adds a further complication to the problems he is describing?
Patrick Hurley
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend—the amount of complications and complexities in the voting system in this country needs addressing. This Bill will address just one of those complexities, but I fully agree with what he has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) mentioned that we could perhaps guess his age from the elections he had taken part in. In a similar vein, perhaps Members can guess my age when I say that the first national election I voted in was the landslide Labour victory of 1997. At the time, I was living in the marginal constituency of Knowsley South—it was one of the safest seats in the country. I am sure it was not the vote of my 20-year-old self that tipped the balance in that election, but none the less I was very proud on that May morning to go down to the community centre around the corner from my house, with my voting card in hand, and cast my vote for the first time in a national election for my MP.
I am still very proud that at every election, I cast my vote in person, but just because I am a hopeless old romantic who wants to go down to the polling station, it does not mean that we must ensure that everybody does that. On the contrary, we need to make voting as easy and engaging as possible, so that the majority of people can engage with the process. For those people who cannot vote on the day, we need to ensure that proxy and postal voting, and absent voting more generally, is as easy as it can be.
I will talk briefly about an issue in my constituency and across my wider combined authority area. Over the last couple of years, since voter ID has become mandatory, there has been a localised concern. The law states that an older person’s bus pass is an acceptable form of ID, but the common bus pass in my part of the world is the Merseytravel over-60s bus pass, which the law does not allow to be used as voter ID. My council, and neighbouring councils across the local authority and combined authority area, had to write to every single Merseytravel over-60s bus pass holder in the borough to tell them that their bus pass was not valid to vote with, contrary to what they had been led to expect and believe by the national press in its reporting on the law change.
Graeme Downie
Does my hon. Friend agree that the move to ensure that veterans’ passes could be used as voter ID, which was one of the first things that this Labour Government did, was a welcome change?
Patrick Hurley
I again agree wholeheartedly. The omission of veterans’ passes from the previous legislation, which meant that they could not be used, was shameful.
We have all talked about the complexities, but the cherry on top of the 57 varieties of voting system that we have all got used to over the years was the old European Parliament elections being held under the d’Hondt system. I am mindful of time, so I will not go into detail on that—I am sure that even Mr d’Hondt could not come up with a better method of filibustering than doing so.
Much to my dismay, this Bill is not intended to correct every single peculiarity of the voting system, but it is intended to correct one. The Elections Act 2022 made it easier to apply online for absent voter arrangements, but it included Scotland and Wales only when it came to UK parliamentary elections. For some reason, Wales was included when it came to police and crime commissioner elections, but Scotland was not. Unwittingly, the weird hotchpotch of systems was made worse, rather than better.
People in Scotland and Wales who thought that they had registered for a postal or proxy vote found out when it was too late that they had registered for one set of elections but not another. Unwittingly, they were being disenfranchised, due to the nonsensical bureaucratic changes that had been brought in. Even council officers, as has been made clear, did not want this change; it heaped further administrative and cost burdens on electoral officers and local authorities. Nobody wanted it to happen, yet almost by accident, the complexity was increased.
There needs to be a raft of changes. The remits of the various boundary commissions need revisiting, and the voting system needs updating to ensure stability and good governance. In July last year, we achieved stability and good governance almost by accident, despite the voting system. Voting needs to be made more accessible, and engagement with the democratic process needs to be made easier.
In conclusion, there is a huge patchwork quilt of rules that make sense to almost nobody. The Bill seeks to rectify one small aspect of the increasingly daft situation. I hope it is allowed to make progress.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward the Bill, and for working constructively with parliamentarians in other places. I am not sure what I can add to this full, thorough, enjoyable and important debate, but I will cover two points: the inconsistency in current arrangements, and the effect on those most likely to need a proxy vote.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, many of us in this place will fondly remember the first time we went to vote. For me, as for my hon. Friend, it was at the 1997 general election that I first felt the buzz of putting an x in the box and exercising my democratic right. However, for an increasing number of our fellow citizens, that is not what democracy means to them.
As we have heard, participation in democracy is falling around the UK. Turnout at local elections is consistently disappointing low, whether they are part of the cycle of regular elections or by-elections. There is much to be done to correct that trend, re-enthuse people about our democracy and rebuild the bonds of trust that have been tested over the past few years, and a vital part of our strategy must be around greater consistency and access to voting. It is bizarre to me, and, I assume, many hon. Members in the Chamber today, that a simple and quick way of registering online a request for a proxy vote is not available at every election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the difference between general election registration and devolved or local election registration is unnecessary and inconvenient. It causes huge confusion among voters and, I assume, elected Members too; we rushed to find out the rules for the previous election whenever we were presented with questions on the doorsteps.
One of the greatest strengths of our democracy is the speed and expertise with which our elections are arranged. However, real life is rarely so easy to plan. Proxy voting is an important and flexible arrangement that enables hundreds of thousands of citizens to exercise their right to vote. I add my thanks to the returning officers, electoral teams and police, who are essential to safeguarding the democratic process in our communities.
The process of registering a proxy vote ought to be consistent for voters, so that registering for a proxy vote in the July 2024 general election is no different from registering for one in the Holyrood elections in May 2026 or the Scottish local elections in May 2027. If we are keen to increase democratic participation, as I believe all hon. Members present are, we must ensure consistent and comprehensive registration processes. We value our elections, but when we fail to digitise or make registration for proxy votes more accessible, we create unnecessary differences that confuse voters and act as a barrier to participation. To put it simply, the law in Scotland for one election should match the law in Scotland for all elections.
The people who rely on proxy voting the most are young people, students and those with disabilities. The young are part of a digital generation whose university applications and rental contracts are digital, but they cannot arrange a proxy vote for a local or devolved election digitally. However, young people increasingly live further from home in temporary accommodation for study before returning to their family homes. However, young people increasingly live further from home in temporary accommodation for study before returning to their family homes. Students from my constituency who are temporarily living away and who registered online for a proxy or postal vote in the general election cannot do the same for the upcoming Scottish elections. I want to add my full support for my hon. Friend, and I thank everyone, certainly on the Government Benches and hopefully in the Opposition too, for their support in making it easier for everyone to access our democratic processes.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I rise to express my full support for the Bill, which would uphold our democratic principles by ensuring that absent voting is more accessible, consistent and secure across Scotland and Wales, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing it. We debated the sunshine Bill earlier, and as we were going through all the different weather types, I was starting to think we should maybe name this one the no sunshine Bill for all types of election.
Democracy flourishes when it is inclusive, when it reaches out to every citizen and when it removes unnecessary barriers to participation. The Bill seeks to strengthen our democracy by ensuring that those unable to attend polling stations in person are still able to make their voices heard. As a former leader of a district council that oversaw local and national elections, I am acutely aware of the vital role that local government plays in serving our communities and contributing to their wellbeing. It is imperative, therefore, that we safeguard and strengthen the legitimacy of this crucial tier of governance by promoting greater accessibility and encouraging broader participation in local elections.
The cornerstone of the Bill lies in recognising that no eligible voter should be excluded from participating in our democratic process due to personal circumstances beyond their control. Digital tools are essential to that, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the options. Our electoral system must evolve to meet the demands of a changing world. The Bill builds on existing provisions for absent voting and brings them in line with modern expectations of accessibility and efficiency. Although the Bill makes voting more accessible, it also ensures that our elections remain secure, and that public confidence in the democratic process is upheld. This House must always strike a balance between empowering voters and safeguarding the legitimacy of our electoral outcomes. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the anticipated costs of the change.
The Bill is also a reminder of the strength and cohesion of our Union. While respecting the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, it ensures that the principles of democracy are upheld uniformly. The Bill is timely and necessary, and it reflects the values we hold dear as a nation, such as belief in the right of every citizen to participate in the democratic process, and the importance of ensuring that that process remains accessible, secure and fair. I encourage all Members to support the Bill. Together, we can demonstrate our commitment to a modern, inclusive and resilient democracy that works for all.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on securing the Bill and bringing it to the House. The Bill represents an important step forward in making voting more accessible and efficient for all. The focus of the Bill is clear: to streamline and modernise the process of registering for absent voting, whether by postal vote or proxy, particularly for elections held in Scotland and Wales.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to all electoral staff across the whole United Kingdom. We know that, as elected politicians and candidates, we put them through stress when we phone them to say, “This person hasn’t registered. Can I get them down?” or “Where’s this polling station?”. They go through a lot, and we thank them for what they do.
We welcome the Bill. The changes it would make were originally proposed under the last Conservative Government, but as hon. Members will know, the Welsh and Scottish Governments declined to provide the necessary legislative consent motions when the Elections Bill 2022 passed through the UK Parliament in 2022. That meant that all the strengthened rules on postal and proxy voting could be applied only to reserved elections. Under the current arrangements, electors must submit paper forms to apply for or to modify absent votes. The Bill seeks to align that process for devolved elections with reforms introduced in the Elections Act 2022 for reserved elections. By enabling the use of the UK digital service for online applications, it will simplify and modernise the system, ensuring greater accessibility and efficiency for voters.
I appreciate that, as a consequence of devolution, electoral law will diverge due to the policy choices of the different Governments and legislatures, but we should avoid divergence for divergence’s sake. Since some elections will remain reserved, such as those to the UK Parliament, it would make sense to facilitate the smooth administration of elections by aligning processes for electoral administrators and political parties as much as is practicable. Otherwise, it just creates more work for everyone and confuses voters, as has been outlined by Government Members.
The provisions of the Bill will allow Scottish and Welsh Ministers to implement the measures ahead of the next devolved elections in 2026. The ultimate goal is to encourage participation in the democratic process while safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system, and we must recognise the differences in turnout between general elections and elections for devolved Governments. In Wales, turnout for Senedd elections has historically lagged behind general elections, as evidenced by the turnout rates of 46.6% in 2021, compared with 56% in 2024. In Scotland, turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections is comparatively higher, but there remains room for improvement. Making voting easier and more accessible is one way to address that disparity.
It is important that online applications do not open the door to electoral fraud, as the whole point of the Elections Act 2022 was to toughen the rules and practices for electoral integrity. That is why it is essential—we will scrutinise this in Committee—that there are strict online verification checks for online absent vote applications for devolved elections, and that those are the same checks as for hard-copy applications. Fraudsters will just divert their malpractice if one venue is more lax. Electronic applications are more vulnerable to external interference, as a hostile actor can be literally anywhere in the world. If the Bill goes into Committee, I would like to see a requirement in primary legislation for the necessary checks already operational in reserved elections to be required in secondary legislation. That would help to ensure consistency across all elections, as many Members have outlined that they want.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been consulting on legislative reform orders to implement the same provisions. Will Ministers indicate how that interacts with the proposed passage of the Bill? For example, do Ministers intend to opt for a legislative reform order if the Bill does not have sufficient parliamentary time? It is worth noting that the electoral bodies, including the Electoral Commission, support these changes. The commission highlights the need for clarity and preparation to ensure that these provisions are in place by October 2025, giving electoral officers ample time to adapt, and giving voters sufficient awareness, before the 2026 elections.
In conclusion, the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill is a pragmatic and necessary step towards improving voter access and protecting the integrity of our electoral processes, by bringing absent voting practices in devolved elections in line with the rest of the UK. It will modernise and future-proof our democracy while empowering citizens in Scotland and Wales to participate more easily in elections.
I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on the spirit with which she has brought forward this legislation: to make voting and access to voting easier for people while ensuring that voting remains secure. I hope that her Front-Bench colleagues take that same stance and change their mind on watering down voter ID, which will have the opposite effect from the aims and aspirations of this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on her Bill successfully reaching Second Reading. I thank election officials and express my gratitude for all the work they did at the general election and in other elections.
The Bill provides the legal framework for applications to vote by post or proxy in devolved elections in Scotland and Wales to be made online through the services already in place for UK parliamentary elections and local elections. It will also deliver changes to align application procedures for different types of elections, which will reduce the risk of confusion among electors about which arrangements they have in place for different elections, as has been said. By enabling access to those online services, the Bill will make the lives of thousands of electors easier and encourage participation in our democracy. In short, my hon. Friend’s Bill addresses a difference that, if not resolved, would see electors in Scotland and Wales having less choice than those in England when it comes to electoral services. The Government wholeheartedly support the aim of removing that divergence.
I am delighted that we have had such a great turnout of Members for the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Southport (Patrick Hurley), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for their contributions. I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his contribution. It is extremely beneficial and helpful that there is agreement on the need to do this, and I am grateful for that cross-party support. I will not have the opportunity to respond to all the points in the debate. If I do not cover them all in the short time I have, I will be happy to follow up in writing.
We are committed to supporting returning officers in ensuring access to participation, particularly of those with disabilities and older voters, as mentioned by my hon. Friends. We continue to work closely with organisations that support disabled individuals to participate in our democratic process. On the point made about the complexity of the electoral system, we will work closely across the sector to gather feedback, analysis and ideas.
A number of hon. Members raised the importance of increasing engagement in the political process and increasing participation, including the voting age and younger voters. Various factors can impact voter turnout levels at elections, as was highlighted in the Electoral Commission’s report last year in the general election. As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and widening participation in our elections. We will ensure that every legitimate voter has the opportunity to vote and is encouraged to exercise their right to vote, and we are making good progress on several areas to deliver those commitments.
Work is also under way on extending the franchise for all UK elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, and legislation for that will be introduced in due course, strengthening our democracy and empowering young people to participate in it. We firmly believe in building a strong foundation for democratic participation among young people, and we will work closely with stakeholders to ensure that it is implemented appropriately.
The Bill puts citizens’ needs at its heart and supports the use of technology in delivering services. Ensuring that people’s voices can be heard and encouraging participation are vital to our democracy. I know that colleagues in the Scottish and Welsh Governments share the same objectives. I am therefore delighted that they have chosen to take advantage of this innovation in their elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith articulated the benefits to electors of bringing Scottish and Welsh elections into the scope of the digital service, and I do not intend to repeat them. Instead, it may be helpful to provide some context by giving Members a brief overview of the history of the online absent vote applications services and outline how this Government will support the implementation of the legislation.
Before the launch of the digital service, any electors who wished to vote by post or proxy would have to request a form by post—as has been pointed out—or print out a form, complete it and return it to their local electoral registration office. That could be a cumbersome and difficult process, and some electors may have had to rely on others to help them with it. The online postal vote and proxy vote allocation services, launched on 31 October 2023, resulted from a thorough design and testing process involving 3,000 citizens across the UK. They have been used to great effect by more than 2 million citizens, both at the local elections in May 2024 and at the most recent general election.
The Bill provides the legal framework for applications for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales to be received through the UK online service, along with some changes to align application procedures, which my hon. Friend has described. Making that legal framework a reality will require further regulations to be designed and delivered by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, with whom the responsibility for devolved polls lies. The Government, having had the experience of delivering these changes for reserved elections, stand ready to provide any advice and support that may be required, and will work closely with the devolved Governments in facilitating the digital change. I assure the House that any changes required to the digital services will need to meet the same robust standards required of all gov.uk services.
Let me turn to some of the points that Members have made. We acknowledge that the Electoral Commission’s findings, set out in its report published last November, identified some problems with aspects of the system for voting by post. In a minority of cases, electors were unable to return their postal ballot packs in time for the 2024 general election, which was a particular problem for overseas electors. We are carefully considering the commission’s findings and recommendations, and we will respond to its report on the 2024 election in the coming weeks. However, it is important to note that the Electoral Commission also found that the majority of people who voted by post were satisfied with the method, and overall postal voter turnout remained high, at 80%. I am confident that the introduction of online absent vote applications for devolved polls would have benefits for administrators in Scotland and Wales rather than having any negative impact.
Discussions have been held with the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the costs associated with their joining the online absent vote application services. As the work involved in the extension of the service is being done at their request, it is appropriate for them to cover the costs of any further work that needs to be completed to achieve alignment. Both Governments have agreed to cover the costs of implementing the services for their devolved elections. Because much of the work involved in designing the services has already been completed, the costs associated with their adoption by Scotland and Wales are likely to be lower than the initial costs incurred before the launch in October 2023.
I hope that, given the time, I can respond in writing to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her brilliant work on the Bill. I look forward to taking this work forward with her in Committee, and I hope that she is pleased with the outcome today.
Tracy Gilbert
With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate, including the many, many interventions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). To answer the point made by my hon. Friends the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Southport (Patrick Hurley), I understand that legislative consent was sought during the passage of the Elections Act 2022 by the UK Government to enable online services to be used for devolved Scottish and Welsh elections, but it was not granted by either devolved legislature at that time. Through the Bill, we can help Scottish and Welsh voters to apply online for absent votes in all elections for which they are eligible. If the Bill passes swiftly, they will be able to use those benefits in time for the May 2026 Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections.
The Bill will make it easier to participate in our democracy. I believe that the more electors who are able to exercise their democratic right, the stronger our country will be.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Fireworks Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to bring the Bill to the House. We all know that our constituents, whether we live in a town, city or village, are fed up with nuisance loud fireworks. This is no longer something that just happens once or twice a year; it plagues our constituents’ nights almost every night, particularly in places like Luton North. I want to thank the co-sponsors of the Bill, my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and another big supporter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We have had wide support for the Bill, because we know the impact this issue has on people’s lives.
I have heard about this issue consistently from hundreds of constituents across Luton North over the past five years. To put it into context, it does not just affect people with pets or the elderly. I was at Parklea primary school last week and spoke to the students. Every single one of them said that they had been kept up by fireworks, so it is having a detrimental impact not just on our environment or mental health, but on education. Groups across Luton North and the country reported that last year was possibly the worst for fireworks in terms of loudness, frequency and antisocial use. In some communities, they were used almost as a weapon.
What is the problem? Under current laws, any adult is able to purchase fireworks that can make noise of up to 120 decibels. I am loud, but that is as loud as a rock concert, and any member of the public can go ahead and buy something that loud.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful start to her speech. I congratulate her on a second bite of the cherry, as this is her second time with this private Member’s Bill. She talks about education and loudness. Does she agree that there is a particularly bad and detrimental impact on those suffering from neurodiverse conditions?
Sarah Owen
Absolutely. I have parents with children with special educational needs. It is particularly distressing in the middle of the night for non-verbal autistic children and young people, and calming down loved ones is really difficult. They say that the sporadic nature of the fireworks causes distress: they cannot plan in advance, and cannot prepare young and neurodiverse people for a barrage of noise.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this important piece of legislation. She talks about how the uncontrolled use of fireworks is very distressing, and causes distress and injury to people. As a veterinary surgeon, I have seen at first hand the impact on animals both large and small: cowering pets, pets that go missing, and farm animal livestock or horses that bolt and cause themselves horrific injuries. Does she agree that we need more regulation and control, so that people can protect themselves and animals?
Sarah Owen
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member, who has extensive experience as a vet. Indeed, he supported the previous iterations of the Bill, for exactly the same reasons that he has outlined. The Kennel Club has reported an 81% increase in the number of dogs going missing when fireworks are used, and it changes their behaviour. Some of the fireworks lobby have said that we need to train our pets better. No animal is better trained than a guide dog, but guide dog users have told me that fireworks affect them so much that they cannot go outside when fireworks are going off.
As has been alluded to, this Bill represents a second bite of the cherry. We know that enforcement is so difficult, because the police have had their numbers cut to the bone and are limited in their powers. That is why this Bill focuses on licensing and sales alone.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Like everyone else, I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting forward the Bill. Is she surprised to hear that this is one of the biggest issues that I come across in surgeries and emails? Over 750 people have contacted me about it since the election. She has spoken about the impact of fireworks on animals, children and people with neurodiverse conditions. I have been contacted by a number of veterans and others who are often traumatised or woken up by fireworks. On that basis, does she agree that her Bill is absolutely necessary at this stage?
Sarah Owen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fireworks really affect veterans, and people with PTSD and mental health issues, which is why I am proud that this Bill has been supported by Combat Stress and Help for Heroes, and by the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Redwings and the Kennel Club. There could not be a more diverse group of organisations and charities, and they are all saying that it is now time to limit the level of the loudest fireworks.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is absolutely clear that eventually there will be action in this area, and my hon. Friend will take great credit for that when it happens. In recent weeks, I have spoken to a police officer in my constituency who was injured by a firework last year, and I have been introduced to a man whose mother was killed when one was put through her letterbox. More recently, a senior police officer in my constituency asked the Government to take action to control the import and sale of fireworks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very clear that action is needed, and that the Government should ask themselves whether they want to be proactive or end up reacting to events?
Sarah Owen
My hon. Friend highlights perfectly the seriousness of this matter. When explosives such as F3 fireworks get into the wrong hands and are used for criminal ends, it has horrendous, life-changing and sometimes life-taking consequences. That is why I want to see an end to the perverse loophole that allows unlicensed sellers to sell fireworks to members of the public during certain periods of the year, such as Diwali and new year’s eve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Owen
I will make a little progress.
At the times when we want fireworks the most, unlicensed pop-up shops appear. They sell explosives that should be handled by licensed sellers, and that should only be sold to members of the public at the lowest and safest levels.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Hayley from Adel, who contacted me before the election to say that the balance has now got completely out of kilter? We have all heard about the devastating impact of fireworks on wildlife and the tragic case of Roxie at Edinburgh zoo, and about the social impact—for example, on neurodiverse people. We now have the ability to manage the use of fireworks through restrictions, or by bringing down the decibel level, in order to provide a more effective balance for our communities.
Sarah Owen
I wholeheartedly agree. There are some incredibly cool alternatives to loud fireworks, and the general public really like them. A YouGov survey recently said that drones are more popular than fireworks in the UK, and we have seen some fantastic drone displays. There are also low-noise fireworks, but the general public still do not know quite what they are buying at the moment.
I would hazard a guess that not many people would know—until they became as nerdy as me about fireworks—the difference between an F2 and an F3 firework. We need to enable, encourage and educate responsible members of the public on what they are buying and on the alternatives. There is a challenge there for the fireworks lobby, which needs to diversify. There is a hunger among the public and consumers for quieter fireworks and increased use of technology such as drones. We need to see change now, because the public are behind us—
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June.
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.
Chalk Streams (Protection) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Social Media (Access to Accounts) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Animals in Medical Research (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Treatment of Terminal Illness Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act (Review) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January.
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
PETITION
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Local Liberal Democrat councillors and I have spoken to hundreds of people in Roughton and the surrounding villages who are furious about the prospect of losing post office services in their area. For the older population in North Norfolk, they are a vital lifeline not just for post but for banking, cash access and more. I present this petition in the hope that our collective pressure on the Post Office will secure a better future for these important services in those rural villages. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Post Office to review the closure of Roughton Post Office, seek alternative arrangements to protect the existence of a Post Office in Roughton, and ensure that there is reliable and appropriate access to Post Office services within Roughton.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the village of Roughton in North Norfolk,
Declares that Post Office services in the village must be protected as they are a vital lifeline for many residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Post Office to review the closure of Roughton Post Office, seek alternative arrangements to protect the existence of a Post Office in Roughton, and ensure that there is reliable and appropriate access to Post Office services within Roughton.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003034]
Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured this debate after entering the ballot many times.
The origins of the green belt go back certainly to the start of the last century, but perhaps even further, because in 1580 Elizabeth I tried to impose a block on building within three miles of the City of London, in order to prevent the spread of plague. Today, I will talk a little about the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and a large area of land now known as the green belt.
Almost two thirds of undeveloped land in the Basildon borough is green belt, covering some 6,590 hectares. Why this debate today? Basildon council has put forward a new local plan, with a consultation that closed just a few days ago, for 27,000 homes right across the borough—the majority of which are in my constituency—covering a huge quantity of that green belt. There are 25% more homes this year on the green belt, because this Labour Government cut the need for housing in London by 17,000 properties a year and increased it in the home counties by 18,000 properties a year. All those extra properties will be heading to the green belt in constituencies such as mine across Essex and the south of England.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and fellow Essex MP on securing this important debate. His constituency, like mine, has precious green belt that is so important to the environment, biodiversity and our physical and mental health. I acknowledge the need for housing, but does he share my concerns about this Labour Government’s central top-down targets being imposed on communities against their wishes and, equally, their plans to reclassify some of the green belt as grey belt, thereby putting our precious green belt under immense pressure and danger?
Mr Holden
I certainly agree, and I was about to move on to that point. None of us on the Opposition Benches is against more housing, but often that housing does not come about because of local need in our constituencies. This is about a Government shying away from difficult conversations about densification in our cities, a mayor who has consistently failed to deliver on his own housing targets, and a failure to redevelop crucial brownfield land in the centre and on the edges of our major cities.
My hon. Friend’s point about the grey belt is particularly important at the moment, because the council is starting to redesignate large areas of my constituency. Just a few years ago, those areas were grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. Now, they are being designated as grey belt, despite never having had any buildings on them. I am concerned about what this insidious grey belt phrasing could mean for developments right across the country.
The Government will ask where the housing should go. London is a third less dense than Paris. It seems mad that we are building on virgin greenfield sites rather than densifying our cities, especially at a time when constituents in Essex and across the country are having to cross-subsidise the Mayor of London for his transport. They do not get access to it, but they have to pay for it. If we had greater density in our cities, some of those transport routes would be able to fund themselves.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the Mayor of London has been given subsidies for Transport for London and has wonderful transport infrastructure links, but that he has the devolved power for housing and has not met his housing targets consistently? He has been rewarded with a reduction in housing targets, which have spilled over to the home counties.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The Mayor of London is being rewarded for failure, just as he was with his knighthood not that long ago. My constituents, many of whom grew up in the area or moved there for the green space nearby, now feel that they face seeing their communities concreted over because of the Mayor of London’s failure.
The green belt was designated by Conservative Governments in the 1930s and Labour Governments in the 1940s. One cannot talk about it today in the context of Basildon and Billericay without talking about Basildon council’s disastrous local plan, which is built on the destruction of the green belt. It will result in the emergence of a contiguous conurbation all the way from Shoeburyness, through the Thames gateway corridor and my constituency, into Brentwood and then through London all the way to Uxbridge on the other side. Essentially, the area from Heathrow airport to Southend airport will become part of that contiguous conurbation.
What I have to say about the green belt rests on so many conversations I have had with county, borough, town and parish councillors, but overwhelmingly on conversations with local residents across my constituency. My argument rests on four main points. First, there is overwhelming opposition to the proposals, especially in the context of London seeing a reduction in its housing targets. Secondly, there are serious concerns about existing and future local services and infrastructure, if this housing goes on the green belt. Thirdly, there will be a need for even more physical infrastructure on whatever remains of the green belt to cope with the proposed development, leading to its further erosion in the future. Fourthly, local residents have broader concerns about why the plan is being rushed through so quickly with the destruction of so much green belt, while our local councils have a gun to their head in respect of the Government’s devolution plans.
I want to be clear: residents of Basildon and Billericay are not against development per se. They are entrepreneurial, hard-working people who love their area. They are also community oriented and have stayed in Essex to raise their family or moved to Essex from London for the green space and greater sense of community. The level of building proposed is on a scale completely out of whack with what other parts of the country away from the south-east face.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. One of the most worrying things about Labour-run Basildon council’s new local plan is that 17,000 of the 27,000 proposed dwellings—just shy of two thirds of the total—are intended to be built in the green belt. Surely that is environmental and ecological vandalism.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It would basically mean the merging of Wickford in his constituency with Basildon, as part of the continuous conglomeration of building that would go all the way through Greater London.
Earlier this week, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said in answer to my question that Basildon and Billericay residents should be proud of their council and its plans for 27,000 more properties. If every constituency in England was being asked to take what Basildon and Billericay is being asked to take, the Government would have a housing target of 12 million homes by 2040. We are bearing more than our fair share and more than is necessary. It is difficult to see how that is justified when housing targets are being cut for London.
As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is overwhelming local opposition to this. Central Government should be concentrating on densification of brownfield sites. There is a real fear that when the green belt is gone, the green sites left in the constituency will face immense pressure—places such Norsey Wood in Billericay, which will be the only green space for so many local residents. The pressure on the green spaces that remain will be huge, because none of the alternatives will exist.
If this plan is accepted, even with modifications, the towns and villages of the Basildon borough will become part of an amorphous mass. Villages such as Little Burstead, Great Burstead and South Green, Ramsden Bellhouse, Crays Hill and Noak Bridge just will not exist any more. They will be footnotes in the history of Labour’s plans to build, build, build.
There are serious concerns about local education provision, as we already have oversubscribed primary schools. That is particularly acute when it comes to special educational needs, with some of the services being in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). There are already major pressures on our green belt from the housing plan, and we are not seeing the services to go alongside it. That is particularly difficult for the green belt, because the only place where those services can be built is in that green-belt space. With the plans the council has put forward, what we are seeing is just the start of the erosion of our green belt.
Healthcare is another major concern for local people. We are already seeing acute pressures on primary care services in south Essex, and yet we are expected to take potentially tens of thousands more residents, without any clear guidance from the Government on what will happen or any plans for where the additional health services we will require would be. We have seen recently in the borough a lack of support from Basildon council’s leadership for Conservative councillors in Burstead and Billericay who are trying to push back on plans to close South Green surgery.
Police and fire services are another classic example of where we already face big pressures. The infrastructure required for the fire service and police service to respond within the required times is already being stretched to breaking point. All that extra building on the green belt in constituencies such as mine will just put more pressure on those local services.
That brings me to the need for more physical infrastructure. At the moment, Tye Common Road in my constituency is basically the last bit of green space we see before we get to the greater conurbation of London. That is not going to exist—in the next few years, it will be carpeted with huge amounts of new building. Small local roads that are already over capacity, all of which go through the green belt, will have to be expanded. Whether it is the A129, the A176 or Tye Common Road, which go between Basildon and Billericay, the massive expansion of those roads will further damage the green belt. That is before we even come to the A127 or A13, which run east-west through my constituency or just outside it, and are major arterial routes for the entire region. The green belt is already massively at stake, and I do not want to see it further at stake. I do not want to see massive new road building programmes, but they will have to happen if the Government’s proposals go ahead.
Before I close, I want to mention the future-proofing of these plans. We are seeing the Government push for devolution across the country, and nowhere more so than in Essex. The local plan that has been proposed, with all this churning up of our green belt, may well not be what is wanted by the council that the Government are basically going to impose on us, with a new unitary authority and a mayor, in a couple of years.
I urge the Government to think very carefully. Once the green belt has gone, it cannot be changed back. We need to think again, especially as we face massive local government reform over the next couple of years, pushed forward by this Government. So many properties are being proposed locally for building on green belt land. That means irreversible destruction, and the merging of towns and villages across Basildon borough. It is hardly surprising that local people are outraged by the loss of their green belt. I have yet to find anyone in my area who supports the proposal. The people of Basildon and Billericay, Laindon, Crays Hill, Noak Bridge, Noak Hill, the Bursteads and Ramsden Bellhouse want the green belt to be protected to keep their communities special. They are not against development; they are just against the wholesale destruction of their communities by a Government who do not seem to understand or care about them.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) on securing this important debate on the green belt in his constituency. While I disagree with many of the views he has just set out, I acknowledge the strength of feeling, and in particular his views on the emerging Basildon local plan.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government take a “brownfield first” approach to development. To that end, we made targeted changes to the national planning policy framework in December to place even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield redevelopment, and to clarify that proposals for development on such land should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused by them. With a view to informing future policy development, we also published a brownfield passport planning reform working paper in September, setting out a series of proposals designed to prioritise and fast-track building on previously developed urban land wherever possible. None the less, we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield registers across the country to deliver the volume of homes that we need each year, let alone sites that are viable and in the right location.
That is why, in our first month in office, we consulted on a new approach to the green belt to support local planning authorities that face acute housing and development pressures in meeting their needs. I reiterate that the Government attach great importance to green belts and remain committed to preserving them. Green belts have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
The Government have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms provide for a more strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, allowing us to move away from the previous Government’s approach to the green belt, which was to allow land within it to be released regularly, in a haphazard manner, and often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. As a result of our changes to national planning policy, local authorities must take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt, and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites, we have incorporated into the NPPF a definition of grey belt land that reflects the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little to it by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value.
To ensure that local authorities are well equipped and supported to implement our policy changes, we will provide grant funding totalling £14.8 million to support authorities with green belt reviews, and we intend to provide further guidance in the near future to support a consistent approach across the country to grey belt designation. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his local authority is identifying swathes of grey belt land, given that we only published our precise definition of grey belt land on 12 December. I shall be interested to hear how Basildon council is progressing its green belt view based on that definition.
Because the Government recognise the public value provided by the green belt, we have ensured that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from it through plan preparation or review, or on green belt sites subject to a planning application, it will be subject to new “golden rules”, ensuring the delivery of high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public; and, importantly—I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the subject—the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure.
Mr Francois
Mid and South Essex hospitals trust, which runs Basildon hospital, reported that in the autumn, the hospital was running at between 98% and 99% of its bed capacity. In recent weeks, because of winter pressures and flu, bed capacity has exceeded 100%. The standard NHS ratio is 2.4 new patients for each house, so 27,000 new households is just under 65,000 new patients for Basildon hospital, which is already bursting at the seams. Surely the new local plan is unsound on that score alone; Basildon hospital just cannot cope with it.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I note his concerns about hospital capacity in the area. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will also have registered those comments. We are working closely with colleagues across Government to bring forward the necessary infrastructure, whether it be health or educational provision. It is for local authorities in the first instance, through the development of up-to-date local plans, to address the needs and opportunities in their area in relation to infrastructure, and—as planning policy guidance makes very clear—to bring forward infrastructure funding statements setting out what local infrastructure is needed and how it should be funded, including through the contributions made by developers.
Mr Francois
I understand the principle, but I have read the local plan. There is not one specific word in there about plans to expand Basildon. There is an associated infrastructure delivery plan, which is a living document; it is three years out of date, and there is no specific plan in there for Basildon. I understand the theory, but Basildon borough council simply has not addressed this—it has said nothing about it at all.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard the point he has made. He will understand that given the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on the specifics of an individual local authority’s plan, but he has put his point on the record regarding health provision in the area.
When it comes to affordable housing, our new golden rules will require a 15 percentage point premium on top of existing requirements, up to a maximum of 50%. No site-specific viability assessments will be permitted until we have strengthened national planning guidance on viability, in which we will consider the case for permitting viability negotiations on previously developed land and larger strategic sites that are likely to carry greater infrastructure costs. We have also ensured that the sustainability of sites must be prioritised. No one wants to see isolated and disconnected development, which is why our policy asks authorities to pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.
I want to make it clear that while our reforms will help deliver the homes and development that this country so desperately needs, they will not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are maintaining the existing strong protections in the national planning policy framework for the best and most versatile agricultural land—the land most important for food production—and we have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. Alongside those protections, we are ensuring that green-belt developments deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.
As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay knows, to support the Government’s plan-for-change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes this Parliament, we introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need. We recognise that as a result, some areas of the country will see their targets raised. That includes London and the south-east; the numbers we consulted on back in July were raised partly in response to concerns expressed through the consultation about the lack of responsiveness to affordability. Many areas will see their targets raised, and on 12 December, we raised London’s target from the number we had consulted on. However, the acute and entrenched nature of the housing crisis in England demands that we take steps to significantly increase the supply of homes of all tenures, and all parts of the country, including Basildon and Billericay, need to play their part.
Before I conclude, I will touch on the importance of up-to-date local plans. As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role, I cannot comment on specifics. However, I will take the opportunity to underline that having up-to-date local plans is the best way for local communities to shape development in their area, deliver housing that meets the needs of their communities, and ensure the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.
Mr Holden
Will the Minister reflect on the concerns I have raised, and that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in previous debates, about the huge changes we face locally with devolution? Who will be accountable for local plans when the council that is ramming them through will not even exist in the near future? There is real concern that this is like a hit job being done on our local communities.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. That will depend, of course, on the state of the local plan and what point it is at—whether it is at regulation 18 or 19—and where it is moving forward, but I recognise the point about interaction of the local plan development process with the proposals set out in the English devolution White Paper. There is also a related concern, which I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about on a previous occasion: the Government are very clear that we want to see universal coverage of strategic planning across the country, and we will be asking sub-regions across the country to come together to produce spatial development strategies. That may address concerns in his part of the country and others by ensuring that they consider whether cross-border co-operation might ensure that housing growth happens in a planned and more sensible way, rather than every local authority attempting to meet its need within its own confines.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government inherited what I consider to be a frankly appalling situation in which less than a third of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local development plan. That is not a sustainable basis for a plan-led system, and that is why we have set out an expectation that every local planning authority must have a local plan. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the affairs of Basildon council is a relatively recent development, but he will know that some of the pressures of unplanned development that the authority is experiencing will be because the current local plan was adopted in 1998, making the authority one of a very small number without a Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 plan in place. That reinforces the point that getting a local plan in place is the most effective protection against speculative development. Where plans are not up to date, or where local planning authorities are not delivering the homes that their communities need, it is right that development can come forward from outside the plan, but we want to see more plan-led development across the country.
The new council leadership has acted to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan. I have registered the right hon. Gentleman’s views about it. Local residents will obviously, through consultation, be able to feed in their own views about that emerging local plan, but we think it is important that it comes forward, whatever form it finally emerges in. It is a sad reflection of the predecessors in that authority that the previous Government had to intervene to ensure a new local plan timetable was produced in December 2023. As the council continues to work on the emerging plan, we expect it to explore all options to deliver its housing targets, including maximising the use of brownfield land; considering the densification of sites, where appropriate; working with neighbouring authorities, as I said, as we move towards that emerging universal strategic plan coverage; and, where necessary, having considered fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs, reviewing its green belt.
To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay for bringing this important matter to the House. I note the concerns that he and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford have raised, and I look forward to engaging with him further on how best we can meet housing need in full in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Pimping websites and paying for sex
Written Statements
UK Soft Power Council
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Latin America and Caribbean (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement: Growth Dr Linda Yueh—University of Oxford; Royal Commonwealth Society Ewan Venters—CEO, Hauser & Wirth (former CEO, Fortnum & Mason) Roland Rudd—Global co-chair, FGS Global; Chair, Tate Security Glen Sir Nick Carter—Former Chief of the Defence Staff Dr Comfort Ero—International Crisis Group Europe Mark Leonard—European Council on Foreign Relations Dr Parag Khanna—AlphaGeo Climate Richard Deverell—Kew Gardens Dr Vijaya Ramachandran—Breakthrough Institute Development Dr Sara Pantuliano—Overseas Development Institute Culture Dr Tristram Hunt—Victoria and Albert Museum Lord Mendoza—Historic England Fran Hegyi—Edinburgh International Festival Scott McDonald—British Council Creative Tom Kiehl—UK Music Sir Peter Bazalgette—Royal College of Art Sport Dame Katherine Grainger—UK Sport; University of Glasgow Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson—Sport Wales; UK Active; Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Debbie Hewitt—Football Association Education Vivienne Stern—Universities UK Values and Institutions Patrick Stevens—Rule of Law Director, International Justice Development Anthony Smith—Westminster Foundation for Democracy Dame Linda Dobbs—Former UK High Court Judge Media Tom Fussell—BBC Studios Tourism Peter Gowers—European Former CEO, Travelodge Science and Technology Professor Helen McCarthy—Queens University Belfast; Chief Science & Technology Adviser, Northern Ireland
I would like to update Parliament on the UK Government approach to soft power. The global community faces some of the greatest challenges of our lifetime: conflict across multiple continents, the climate and nature emergency, the threat of harms flowing from unregulated emerging technologies and their use by hostile states. Our rules-based international order, historically used to tackle these issues, is under attack. To meet these challenges, the UK must collaborate and take action.
Our offer to the world is unique: we are a beacon of democracy underpinned by a talented and independent judiciary. We boast internationally recognised cultural, creative and sporting sectors, vibrant in all four corners of our country and around the world. We have a world-class education system, resilient and revered financial and legal sectors, and groundbreaking science, technology and research centres. The impact of the BBC World Service and British Council is unparalleled.
The spirit of the United Kingdom is built on tolerance, fairness, diversity and inclusivity, and we ground our approach on values. The UK does not sit still; rather, we continue to look at how we can do things differently and find innovative solutions to the problems we and the world face.
While others seek to weaponise their soft power, we seek to collaborate and forge partnerships. If we are to make progress on the challenges that we face, and create a world that is safer, fairer and more prosperous for all, we must engage the sectors, institutions and networks that together contribute to our success and best project those to the world.
It is no longer viable to rely solely on hard tools. A modern, dynamic, engaged Britain unlocks the power of our strongest assets. We must use soft power to deliver hard goals.
New Soft Power Council
Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are launching a new UK Soft Power Council and will convene its inaugural meeting on 15 January.
For the first time, we are bringing together some of the most influential figures across our world-leading sectors in soft power and foreign policy to steer and advise Government.
This council reflects the depth and breadth of our culture, creative, sports, education and science and technology sectors, and will tap into UK expertise on security, climate and nature and development, and our values and institutions.
This is not just an advisory group. The Soft Power Council will enable us to build stronger partnerships with external organisations at home and abroad, identify opportunities to strengthen our reach and reputation and shore up our influence for a generation.
Core to the Council’s mission is the pursuit of economic growth, ensuring a coherent, strategic, approach to soft power that brings tangible economic benefits to citizens across the UK.
Together the Soft Power Council will help the UK Government shape and drive a new UK soft power strategy that will deliver on our foreign policy priorities, bring momentum to campaigns that deploy our soft power and broaden the reach of the major soft power and foreign policy moments in the global calendar. We look forward to inviting contributions from the full range of Parliamentarians to support this initiative.
Co-chaired by us as Secretaries of State, the members of the Soft Power Council are:
Foreign policy
Soft power
[HCWS369]
National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
On 10 October 2024, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the creation of the national infrastructure and service transformation authority. I am today announcing that NISTA will be a joint unit of HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office. This change will bring infrastructure strategy and delivery together to address systemic challenges to growth, and combine the expertise and functions of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Infrastructure Commission.
To support this, responsibility for all of the Infrastructure and Project Authority’s functions and responsibilities, including the Government’s project delivery expertise and functions, and assurance reviews for the Government’s largest projects, will move from the Cabinet Office to HM Treasury.
The principal accounting officer for NISTA will be the Treasury permanent secretary. The lead Minister will be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
This change will be effective from 1 April 2025.
[HCWS368]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start today’s business, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time is four minutes. The advisory speaking time enables all colleagues to participate fairly in the House. I ask colleagues to stick to that, because those in later business will be detained later if people do not.
Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. I am president of the Local Government Association and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Sport Wales, and have other interests as listed.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, for their tireless work on this topic and their Bills in 2014 and 2018 respectively. I put on record my thanks to Tom Perry and Jonathan West from Mandate Now. I also thank Thirtyone:eight, one of many organisations that have mandatory reporting in their manifestos. I thank Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the honourable Jess Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and their team. I thank Professor Alexis Jay, who I met this week, and the many other people who have spoken in support of either this Bill or mandatory reporting in a wider context, including all those who have pointed out potential gaps, asked questions and provided thoughtful suggestions to improve the Bill. I am also sincerely grateful to my private office for its extensive support.
Although there is widespread support for some form of mandatory reporting, the devil is in the detail. As legislators, one of our roles is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Protecting children from sexual abuse should therefore be of the highest priority. Because of this, it is crucial for this debate to happen today. I come at this issue from my own background in sport.
In 2017, after being asked by the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, I produced an independent report, Duty of Care in Sport. While it is really important to note that there are many incredible, caring coaches who have very positive relationships with young people, there are cases in which individuals in organisations knew or suspected child sexual abuse but did not report for several reasons. These may include that the individual was scared to report over fears of losing their job or was worried about their reputation. In one case it was, “I know his wife and family, and I don’t want to do that to them”. I have also heard, “The abuser is a good coach”. No number of gold medals will ever make this okay. While there have been many improvements for safeguards in sport, as there have been in other regulated activities, there is still more that needs to be done.
However, this issue is something that has been debated for many years. As the impact of child abuse has gained more media traction in recent months because of the appalling and sickening reports that we have seen, it only highlights the extent of change that needs to happen. The treatment that those young women experienced was abhorrent, and the impact of it will be felt for decades to come.
Since Rotherham and other child abuse scandals, there have been legislative changes across England, Scotland and Wales. However, in 2022 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, concluded that it was “endemic” and had permeated all sections of society. Victims covered by this inquiry have been waiting a long time and need to know how the Government will report back to them on the next steps. I am pleased that yesterday Yvette Cooper announced government funding for local inquiries into grooming gangs. However, today I hope we can look to the future.
We must continue to learn from past mistakes. While we cannot say that child sexual abuse will stop with this Bill, stricter legislation on reporting will give those children stronger protections than they currently have. A well-designed mandatory reporting law is a key component of an effective safeguarding system. The Bill is about how we protect more of our children going forward. It is slightly ironic that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 introduced mandatory reporting for money laundering under the regulated sector, so for the past 23 years this country has protected money in ways that it has not protected our children.
The Bill imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanction, for the providers of regulated and other activities, or “mandated reporters”, to report to the local authority where they know or reasonably suspect a child in their care to be subject to sexual abuse, at a time that is practicable. Regulated and other activities include such areas as education, healthcare and other settings, and these activities are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. The Bill does not seek to criminalise the general public who do not report suspected child sexual abuse but rather calls for those in positions of authority over children to speak up and protect them.
I will now cover the issue of who is the mandatory reporter. They are someone who is in a position of trust over the child, or an individual who operates in a setting where an activity takes place. They might also be staff employed in a managerial or general welfare role within the activity. This person is then deemed to have direct contact with a child, whether or not the child has been attended by them. A good example of this is a head teacher: they do not necessarily have direct contact with the child on a daily basis in the same way as a classroom teacher, but they are still in a position of trust and safeguarding. A head teacher would therefore have a duty to report.
If an oral account of sexual abuse is made by a child—that is the most common form of reporting—to a mandated reporter, the reporter must then confirm the account in writing no later than seven days thereafter. As I mentioned, they would then need to file the report with any of the three local authority points of contact listed in Clause 1. It is as simple as that. Sadly, the current mindset in some cases of child sexual abuse is that upward reporting in an institution is good enough. It is not. The Bill will ensure that reporting upwards is no longer sufficient.
As a safeguard, under Clause 2(7) the Secretary of State—it has been pointed out that clarification is needed on which Secretary of State—may issue a “suspension document” or suspend the duty to report where the child’s welfare and safety would be compromised if a report were to take place. Under Clause 2(8) the Secretary of State may also exempt specified organisations that work with children generally, or medical officers. This would include the protection of confidential specialist support services for children. Finally, Clause 2(9) confers a power on the Secretary of State by regulations to amend the Schedule by adding to the activities, or varying or deleting an activity set out in the Schedule.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 11th report of the 2024-25 Session said:
“Despite being a Henry VIII power, the Bill does not make provision for the regulations to be made by statutory instrument. There is also no parliamentary scrutiny attached to the power. Accordingly, we recommend that, if the Bill proceeds to its further stages, it should be amended so that regulations under clause 2(9) are required to be made by statutory instrument subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure”.
I appreciate these helpful comments as we progress the Bill.
In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales had experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. In October 2022 IICSA estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys are being sexually abused in the UK each year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse. The Local Government Association—LGA—estimates that only one in three children who were sexually abused by an adult told someone. According to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. The list of statistics could continue, with reports offering varying numbers, but the bottom line is that child sexual abuse is real, it is happening and it needs to be stopped. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse, and changes need to be made.
A concern that has been raised is that people might be worried about wrongly reporting a suspected case of abuse. However, the Bill safeguards anyone who reports in good faith. Evidence from Mandate Now estimates that seven out of eight victims are not known to the authorities at the time of reporting. The key to detection is for mandated reporters to report their suspicions so that cases can be investigated by those with the training and authority to act. Any Bill should ensure the protection of those who report. It is not an individual’s responsibility to decide whether abuse has taken place, and early detection is the key. Justice is not in the hands of the mandatory reporter; it is in the wider child safeguarding system.
Points have been raised on malicious reporting. It is currently illegal to maliciously report child sexual abuse, and the Bill would not change that. But evidence from Australia shows that, although there was a rise in reporting after the introduction of mandatory reporting laws, there was no detected proportional rise in malicious reporting.
A briefing from the LGA indicates that very few children tell anyone that they are being sexually abused at the time it happens because of the taboo associated with it. Then, if children do tell someone, it is most commonly family and friends, not necessarily people who would be mandatory reporters under the Bill. Too frequently, there is a lack of understanding surrounding child sexual abuse across professions and organisations working with children, so raising public awareness and providing culturally sensitive training and support for all are essential.
We need professionals to feel confident in identifying signs of child sexual abuse and reporting it. In both the United States and Australia, reporting laws have been accompanied by training for mandated reporters, which has improved the quality of initial reports. But there also needs to be improved sex education for children, including how to identify sexual abuse. The CSA report demonstrated that some communities may be less able to name their experience as abuse because of a lack of knowledge about sex and consent. When children are educated in understanding the signposts for abuse, they are more likely to report it to people who will be able to help them.
Evidence from Western Australia has shown that, where mandatory reporting was introduced, the number of reports that were made increased by a factor of 3.7. Professor Ben Mathews carried out a study in Western Australia in 2009 that looked at the impacts of mandatory reporting. His research showed that in the three years before mandatory reporting was introduced there were 662 reports per year, compared with 2,448 reports per year in the four years after it was introduced. Importantly, the number of substantiated investigations doubled, indicating that the introduction of mandatory reporting effectively ensures that more cases are recorded by the authorities.
It has been raised that mandatory reporting will put additional pressure on a system that is already stretched. The physical and psychological effects of child sexual abuse cause generational trauma. It destroys lives and has devastating effects on families and communities.
Last week, in Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir Starmer told the other place that one of the “central recommendations” of IICSA was mandatory reporting, and he reminded the other place that he first called for it 11 years ago. We are heading towards three years on from the inquiry, and victims deserve an answer.
IICSA changemakers have been in touch with me. They believe that:
“Effective and timely reporting is a vital part of a well functioning child protection system. That said, mandatory reporting on its own is not a panacea for improving the prevention of, reported rates, considered response and care of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse”.
A significant number of people support some version of mandatory reporting. What we need to do as legislators is ensure that the right protections are in place. The time has come to further legislate to protect our children. The real question is: when and how will action be taken? I beg to move.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely back this Bill—the spirit of it but also the detail. The Government would be foolish not to do likewise.
When I got elected as an MP, the first thing that I did was to convene an inquiry into heroin addiction in my own area. I spoke personally to more than half of the 600 heroin addicts whom I represented as their MP—over half—and every single one had suffered some form of major trauma in their early years. That is a separate issue, but my point is that the consequences of any form of child abuse are major and, indeed, well beyond that child when they become an adult.
There is one pertinent point that has been rather lost in the last few weeks. The term “survivor” has been used. My experience is that very many who were badly abused as children have not survived; either they are not alive, or they are in a position where they are really not capable of doing anything coherent in advocating for themselves. When I took up issues relating to child abuse as an MP, which I did—I spent 30 days representing people at that inquiry—I dealt with people who were incapable of knowing exactly what had happened to them, because the trauma had been so great. I dealt with people whom I was unable to see, because of how the trauma had impacted on how they are, who were being cared for by others, sometimes by the state and sometimes by private institutions. I dealt with people who had been inside prison because the actions that they had taken—and they were evil actions sometimes—had a direct correlation with what had happened.
So this is not some kind of minor issue, and this Bill deals with only one of the 20 recommendations of that inquiry. If the Government—any Government, including this one—fail to implement those 20 recommendations, they will be held to account, and they should be. I will be one of those holding any Government, including this Government, to account.
Four minutes is not a long time, but I shall make a couple of other points that need to made, because they may not be made by others. There is a lot of talk about girls; I dealt with boys as well. On the definition of children in sports, including in football, one thing that I found—and I think I had an influence, although I am sure that football would say that it did it itself and it was just a coincidence of timing—was about the grooming of 16 and 17 year-old girls by football coaches. That was another issue that I had to deal with. Age is also important, and that was one of the complications of that inquiry—the 16 to 19 year-olds, and who is and is not a child. That is fundamental, and certainly everyone aged 18 and under needs to be incorporated into everything.
Finally, I knocked on doors, electioneering, and people would say to me, “John, can I have a word?”. They would tell me what had happened to them, and they would say, “I’m not going to do anything about it”. These were people who had been married for 40 years and had not told their partner, but they told me. They said, “We’re telling you, because you’re doing something about it, and this can be of use to you”. They were not isolated examples. That was more the norm than not the norm, where I was the first who was told, and they said, “We’re not going to do anything about it—we’d like you to do something about it”. That is our responsibility.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I warmly commend the noble Baroness for her tenacity in bringing forward this Bill. There is enormous respect and support for what she is doing.
I want to touch on the context. It was 50 years ago that we had the first public inquiry into child physical abuse, with the Maria Colwell case, when Maria Colwell was beaten and killed by her stepfather. Since then, we have had any number of inquiries on physical abuse, and we do not need any more. The lessons are always the same; why are they not implemented, and why are the dots not joined? With the reports of Herbert Laming, now the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and William Utting, the lessons are the same.
Then we came upon child sexual abuse, which frankly was unthinkable. I think that the House fails to realise that this was not a concept that people even considered, and we are not so far along the line in understanding how addictive it is. In the 1970s, I was asked to review the literature on paedophilia at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley. The view was that the trauma of reporting in a court case was so much more damaging to a family than actually trying to give them a little bit of counselling. Attitudes have changed beyond belief, and we should not judge the past by the present.
Why are people so resistant to reporting? I have personal evidence. I started working for Frank Field at the Child Poverty Action Group; then I wanted to become a psychiatric social worker, so I went as an unqualified social worker to a special boarding school for the Inner London Education Authority. I discovered that the headmaster spent all his time hanging around the girls’ bedrooms, the lavatories and bathrooms. This was horrific. I was 23, it was my first job—I wanted my reputation, so what could I do? I could do no other. I went to the head of my service, the school social work service for the Inner London Education Authority, but I was told, “No, Virginia—if they think that social workers are going to be reporting on things, they won’t allow social workers in the schools”. That was too much for me. My formidable aunt, Peggy Jay, a GLC member, said, “Go and see Lena Jeger”, who was a wonderful Labour woman. I went to see her—and what happened? The man was given a good reference and went to a school in Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells. I could do no other. My friend Patrick Mayhew—the late Lord Mayhew—was the MP, and I said, “If you ever hear anything, you must do something”. What happened? The man went off to a school in Canada.
We need to understand the resistance to reporting. It is damaging for the sport—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is going to speak. You do not want people to think that athletics is full of sex abuse or that a school is full of sex abuse. You do not want people to feel that the Church is full of sex abuse—so we should just be sympathetic to the resistance.
On my next point, we must be careful of false reporting. We all remember the late Lord Brittan and the horrors that he had in the last years of his life—and Lord Bramall. I used to work with a young man who was very disturbed and had seen more than anyone should have done at 15. The first thing he did when he went to a children’s home was to accuse somebody of touching him up. What happens? The person immediately gets suspended. We all know about this from constituents in our schools. False accusations mean instant dismissal and a reputation destroyed, and it is almost impossible for that individual to get back. I am not condoning anything—the trauma, the loss of innocence, the loss of a childhood from child sexual abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. So many people in our prisons and so many drug addicts have had these terrible experiences. But, again, the IICSA story was such a dog’s breakfast. It had all the wrong chairmen. They should have stayed with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and they finally got to Alexis Jay, who I hope will be a Baroness. She is a wise woman, who at last has sorted it out in an intelligent and practical way—and our job is to implement these recommendations.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, while I appreciate how passionately we feel about this issue, the first two speakers have gone about 30 seconds over the advisory speaking time, so could noble Lords please be mindful of the advisory speaking time of four minutes?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support the Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on this important issue. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation across the UK for more than 25 years and now hosts the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. With the support of Barnardo’s, I have long campaigned for more services and greater capacity in the workforce to support victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. From the data we have, experts believe that at least 500,000 children under 18 are sexually abused in England and Wales every year, but the real total is likely to be much higher.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse set out wide-ranging recommendations which must be implemented as a matter of urgency. Survivors must be listened to and services must be adequately funded. Action is long overdue. A duty to report child sexual abuse was a cornerstone recommendation of the independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay. Adults working directly with children have a special responsibility to act when they are concerned about their safety. They must be clear about their responsibilities, and confident and supported to deliver them. In addition, there must be sanctions for concealing or covering up the sexual abuse of children.
The Home Secretary has now committed publicly to introduce this duty in law, along with a new victims’ and survivors’ panel, which I support wholeheartedly. However, victims and survivors have been waiting a long time for action since the review and they must not be left to wait any longer. We need to make sure that children can access specialist, confidential services, where they can build relationships with trusted adults. After experiencing the terrible trauma of sexual abuse, many children need time and space to reach a point where they can share their experiences in full, in a way that means action can be taken to keep them safe and, importantly, to bring abusers to justice. We must make sure that professionals can still take the time, when needed, to build these relationships ahead of reporting to others. If the law gets this wrong, it risks actively harming efforts to reduce sexual abuse—the exact opposite of what this Bill is hoping to achieve.
Without clear protections, essential services such as NSPCC Childline, and the Shore service operated by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, will not be able to continue operating. We must ensure that these services can continue their valuable work. The introduction of any duty to report must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners, including volunteers, working with children. Mandated reporters must have the knowledge to identify and respond to concerns and to support children through the process. That requires high-quality resources and investment, not only from organisations but from government, to ensure that those working with children can access training and develop their skills and understanding.
Being a victim of abuse has a devastating effect on children that often stays with them long into adulthood. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I urge the Government to support this Bill for the sake of all the children who have been or are being sexually abused today.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I support this significant Bill tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has articulated very clearly why it is important. First, I want to recognise, on behalf of the Church of England, our own shocking failures in safeguarding and take this opportunity to apologise to victims and survivors of Church abuse. I fully support the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse and of other abuse, in all contexts. I note the Government’s commitment to doing so in their upcoming police and crime Bill. Today’s debate gives us another opportunity for this important discussion. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing the Bill forward, and to Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions, which I know at times will not be easy.
I have spoken of the need in the Church of England for a reset in safeguarding. This must include a genuinely survivor-focused approach, with independence and mandatory reporting at its heart. Proposals will be brought forward to the Church of England’s General Synod in February, including the introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations. We on these Benches want to continue to work with the Government to support the legislation they bring forward on mandatory reporting, but it must include legally precise definitions of the person to whom the duty applies. This Bill will need some amendment to offer that precision. However, I strongly support its principle and stand ready to work with the Government on this vital safeguarding reform, which, as we have already heard, is long overdue.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this to the House today. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
I want to speak briefly from the perspective of education. I hope and believe that there are no schools that are quite like the ones we heard described from the Benches opposite, but I realise that there are bad actors all over the place. I believe that, in general, child protection and the duty of care is taken seriously by all teachers—certainly by all the teachers I know. It is a significant responsibility. We know there is a great deal of mental ill-health and distress in schools at the moment, but schools are clearly an obvious place to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of child sex abuse.
This implies proper training for all school staff—not just teachers but all staff who work in schools, whether they are in an admin or support capacity. We can never know to whom a child might report something; it could be a school secretary or somebody else. Regrettably, we have heard that often it is reported to no one at all. Such training must be high-quality, and it has to be repeated. We know that there is a high turnover of teachers and other school staff, so this has to be an ongoing programme to make sure that all people in schools understand their responsibilities and the things for which they might need to look out. I add, as the noble Baroness did, that this goes hand in hand with making sure that we have high-quality sex and relationships education, so that children and young people understand what is right and what is not right.
I am pleased that the Bill ensures that there is no penalty if the reporting turns out not to have revealed a case. Head teachers in particular, who hold in their hands the responsibility for a school, will find it difficult to report if they feel that that will have a devastating effect on their school. Equally, they obviously want to make sure that they report properly. Of course, it is not the head teacher, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, who knows what is going on in a child’s life on a daily basis; it is the individual teacher.
I am pleased to support the Bill. I hope and believe that, even if we do not hear something positive from the Front Bench, we will ensure that mandatory reporting does occur, and occurs in a context of proper training for all those who work in good faith with young people, so that we can move towards a significant reduction in this appalling behaviour by adults. Some 85% of this behaviour goes unreported, as we heard from the noble Baroness. We have to find spaces for people who have been subject to such abuse to be able to bring it forward. I support the Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the importance of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse in sport has been campaigned for by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and me for many decades. Our work together on safeguarding in sport goes back to the 1990s, and I warmly congratulate her on introducing the Bill. I also celebrate her lifetime commitment on behalf of those young people and their parents who love sport and expect the best for their children. I thank the right reverend Prelate for an important and very moving contribution to today’s debate.
We know there is a lack of communication between sporting bodies, police and local authorities around child sexual abuse, safeguarding and the need for mandatory reporting to place an obligation on individuals and the bodies delivering sport and recreation to report concerns of sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have both campaigned for a sports ombudsman, in part to fulfil that role.
The Government’s guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, recognised that in paid and volunteer sport staff needed to be aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children—and they are manifold. However, we must take cognisance of the Whyte review, which exposed a problem that extends far beyond gymnastics. We read with sickening realism the tragedy of sexual abuse that took place within our national game of football, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
In her report, Anne Whyte found an “unacceptable” culture and concluded that between 2008 and 2020, there was a failure to put the welfare of participants at the centre of gymnastics, particularly elite gymnastics. There was also a culture that meant the gymnastics community felt unable to raise their concerns. I wonder how many more sporting scandals will occur before we have legislation for mandatory reporting on the statute book. We must never lose sight in sport of the position of authority and control which the sports coach exercises: emotional, physical and verbal abuse, weight-shaming, physical isolation and grooming have too often been used, justified and hidden under a sickening mantra of “Well, that’s what it takes to be the best”. It is not. It must never be tolerated.
Women in sport were right to fight, believe in and call for an independent body for safeguarding and duty of care in sport. The Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee was right in its recommendation that:
“Given the potential for abuse in sport and recreation settings, we recommend that the Minister for Sport, Health and Wellbeing consult and work with the sector to introduce mandatory reporting in sport and recreation settings”.
The proposal came from widespread evidence that the time is right to act now.
I appreciate that Private Members’ Bills are important in their own right. However, they are also important because they can trigger responses from government. This is one vital area of safeguarding that needs addressing, either here or in another Bill. I feel nothing but a sense of urgency underpinned by humility and respect in speaking to this subject in support of the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing it forward. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of Tom Perry and all at Mandate Now on behalf of victims of child sexual abuse. It is clear from the IICSA report that a mandatory reporting duty is essential now.
Over the years, I have been informed by the work of Professor Ben Mathews of Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Ben is the world expert on mandatory reporting duties in legislation; he is certainly not the devil but is well across the detail. Ben has conducted analyses of different models from around the world to identify strengths and weaknesses from legal, theoretical and empirical perspectives. These inform his conclusions about optimal legislative features for a mandatory reporting duty for child sexual abuse. I base my comments today on this work.
Does the Bill before us match up to these criteria? Well, yes, most of them. First, does it adopt a sound definition of the concept of child sexual abuse, operationalised through connected operational definitions, including in associated educational materials? No, it does not, but it needs to add it in the Schedule.
Secondly, does it define a child as including all individuals under the age of 18? Yes. Thirdly, does it clearly list the designated occupational groups of reporters? Yes. Fourthly, does it specify the state of mind activating the duty? This should include “knowledge” and “suspicion on reasonable grounds”. Yes. Fifthly, does it apply to cases of suspected and known past abuse, to presently occurring abuse and to cases where the reporter suspects the abuse is likely to happen? No, only past and current acts are included.
Sixthly, does it specify what details the report must include? No. Seventhly, does it specify to whom the report must be made? Yes. Eighthly, does it specify that a report should be made immediately? No; it says as soon as practicable, which is reasonable.
Ninthly, does it clearly set out that where an expert liaison officer exists, the reporter may discuss their suspicion with that person to inform their decision about whether to report? No, but perhaps it should be put in guidance. Tenthly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows a report about the same incident has already been made? Yes. Eleventhly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows or believes a child is engaging with another young person in genuinely consensual sexual activity? That is not included here.
Twelfthly, does it protect the reporter’s identity? This is essential to reassure reporters of confidentiality. Yes. Thirteenthly, does it confer immunity from liability for making a report in good faith? Yes. Fourteenthly, does it prohibit reprisals against reporters? Yes.
There are five other items on the list which I will give to the Minister as I do not have time to go through them all. However, all in all, this Bill covers most of the bases and it is a very good foundation for legislation. Will the Government base their promised amendment to the Serious Crime Act on this Bill and on Ben Mathews’ checklist, which I will give him?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, this Bill raises a crucial issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is absolutely right to pursue it, despite the promises of the Government that at some point they will bring in legislation that will deal with it. The question is when? As noble Lords have already said, this issue is urgent; it does not need to wait for a thought process for months or more than that.
I bitterly regret not remaining as chairman of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. However, I had burning family issues that meant I could not do it. I have always will felt very guilty that I did not carry it out, though I probably would not have done as good a job as Alexis Jay.
I did an inquiry, the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, and wrote a report in 1988. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was absolutely right, because there are false allegations. Having been a practitioner and a judge for many years, both trying such cases and acting for parties, I discovered that there were false allegations and some of them came through my court.
We need to remember, as has already been said, that it is not only girls but also boys and babies. I have had a significant number of cases of babies being sexually abused—it is horrifying but not unusual. One has to bear in mind that these cases take place within the family, by family members and by outsiders. That is important. However, the large majority of cases are within the family. I was twice a school governor, of a boys’ school and a girls’ school, where I was responsible for pastoral care. In each school, I discussed with the head teacher whether allegations being made should be pursued. That is not easy for the head teacher of a school.
One of the important aspects of having mandatory reporting by agencies is that it should give encouragement to other ordinary people to bring these issues up, such as other members of the family, neighbours, people going to the school, or other people who recognise that a child is not doing well and are worried about that child. If we have mandatory reporting, as we should have, we ought to have an awareness campaign that it is going on and there should be encouragement for people to report, particularly neighbours. We have had a very recent example in the press where the neighbours were concerned about a little girl of 10, Sara Sharif, and they did not do anything. They quite properly would have been right to have gone to someone in authority and said “Look, we’re concerned about what’s happening”. So this is extremely important.
I hope that the Government realise that this cannot wait—I am sure they do; they have the best of intentions—and I ask them to support this Bill.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that your Lordships’ House is in pretty well universal agreement, and I count myself part of that supportive chorus in saying that mandatory reporting is critical for the accountability for and prevention of child sexual abuse and the safeguarding of our children.
I have questions about the Bill, but no questions whatever about the seriousness, rigour and passion that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, brings to her campaigning on this and other issues that come before your Lordships’ House. So, although I have questions, they are offered in a constructive, not to say supportive, fashion.
The Government say that mandatory reporting will be part of the crime and policing Bill planned for the spring. This will, I suspect, preclude them from accepting this Bill, preferring to introduce measures as part of their own legislation. However, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, the Minister, finds a way to embrace this Bill, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because it makes a substantial contribution to that ambition of the Government, and we should work together with the noble Baroness to ensure that the Bill is reflected in the eventual legislation as quickly as possible.
As part of a previous life practising law, largely child law, in Scotland, I have some experience of these issues, albeit in a—very—different jurisdiction. However, I am conscious that there are other Members of your Lordships’ House who have more direct and substantive experience of this jurisdiction. I will therefore take up as little time as possible—well, I have little time anyway—to make the two points I want to make.
I will focus first on the provisions under Clause 2(1), which stipulates that
“if the report under section 1 is made orally, the maker of the report must confirm the report in writing no later than seven days thereafter”.
Clause 3(1) makes a failure to do so an offence. In principle, I see nothing wrong in that, but I worry about its ability to survive a test of the real world. Imagine the following scenario: a newly qualified teaching assistant or other member of staff in their general welfare role, as defined by Clause 2(6)(a), wishing to pass on a suspicion of sexual abuse, makes an oral report under conditions of high emotion. Some six days later, they then have to sit down and attempt to write a letter to the local authority-designated officer to support their claim. It seems possible, if not likely, that there, the delay in the change of medium might lead to discrepancies between the two accounts, which could become significant later on and which could be challenged in some other circumstances.
The production of such a letter is not something I would do without legal support—I say that even with many years’ experience of practising law. I suspect that any difference between oral and written affirmation would be fraught with legal jeopardy at some point in the future. If written evidence is necessary, as I believe those who helped draft the legislation think it is, would it not be better to impose the duty of producing such written testimony on the person who receives it, whether the local authority-designated officer or an employee of the local authority children’s services?
My other question centres around Clause 2(7), which describes exceptional cases in which a Secretary of State can suspend or rescind temporarily the duty to refer. I am not seeking to score points here, but what “exceptional” circumstances is this provision designed to cover? I am not short of imagination, but, even after several days of devising hypothetical scenarios to meet this case, I have thus far been unable to conceive of circumstances in which it would be better for a child’s “welfare, safety or protection” to continue to be abused rather than to have that stopped. As I say, I know those who drafted the Bill would have done so with specific circumstances in mind and, just as a point of information, I would be grateful if they could be outlined.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tenacity in pursuing this Private Member’s Bill. I served on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House looking at statutory inquiries and had the privilege and duty of giving evidence to IICSA while a Minister in the Department for Education.
The Select Committee stated that too many recommendations from statutory inquiries are not responded to or, even if they are accepted, they are not acted on. When victims give evidence as they do in such inquiries, it is disrespectful at least, and possibly harmful, to treat recommendations in this manner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined, this recommendation is nearly three years old. Could His Majesty’s Government make sure that all past recommendations of all statutory inquiries are looked at now? If they have been accepted, when will they be enacted, even if this new Government take a different view? Surely it is better for victims to know that than have this grey area where there has been acceptance but they are not sure what is going to happen?
While there is now widespread agreement on enacting this recommendation, effective definition of this duty is harder than it might seem. The last Government’s attempts might not have actually created a criminal offence. I know that this is a Private Member’s Bill, with all the constraints this brings, but I wonder whether the limitation to humans having knowledge of child abuse now needs updating. Much of the knowledge of or disclosure by children who have been harmed may in fact be sitting on online platforms, as they increasingly disclose in that way. So, when His Majesty’s Government consider this mandatory reporting duty, could we please be assured that the duties to report on corporations and online platforms under the Online Safety Act align with human beings’ responsibility to report such harm under mandatory reporting?
Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, outlined, there is no definition of child sexual abuse in the Bill. Again, with much happening online, such as deepfakes and the plethora of offences, these are now not straightforward issues. What if a group of teenagers come across images on their parents’ devices and happen to mention that casually in the hearing of a youth group leader or teacher? Is that child abuse to report? A proper definition will limit the number of misguided or false reports.
While I welcome the creation of a separate detriment offence in Section 3(2), if someone does not report child abuse as they have suffered a significant detriment, and is charged with the offence under Section 3(1), they do not seem to be able to raise that detriment or the threats they suffered as a defence. Is that really just? While we expect people to put the seriousness of child sex abuse disclosures above the reputation of institutions and their own personal promotion, et cetera, if they are being threatened with significant detriment, should they still be guilty of an offence if they succumb to that pressure? Should the magistrates not at least have a discretion to take that into account or are His Majesty’s Government expecting that the common-law defence of duress will be raised in those circumstances?
I would also be grateful if His Majesty’s Government could confirm whether these offences are going to be relevant for that person’s own DBS check. Whether they have that defence that they can raise is very pertinent, because it could affect their career in an ongoing way if it is relevant to their DBS clearance.
I was surprised to read in the IICSA report that it asked for information from local authorities about the level of disclosure of child sex abuse and was told that the data is not collected. If local authorities are given this duty, surely they should have to collect the data and be given the resources to do so. With over 82,000 people currently barred from working with children, sadly, this is not a historic issue.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot speak too highly of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; they must be applauded. My intention is to raise a narrow aspect of the issue; namely, what has happened since 4 July last year.
I am not an expert and I do not recall anything like the present situation in my 27 years in the Commons. My interest and curiosity were alerted by a letter in the Times on 18 October last year from Richard Scorer and Kim Harrison, joint heads of abuse law at Slater and Gordon Lawyers UK. It pointed out that, in the two years from October 2022, nothing had been done regarding the IICSA report and there was no sign of the present Government addressing the failure. I therefore tabled a Written Question—HL1773—which was answered on 24 October by my noble friend Lord Hanson. It was an excellent Answer and full of empathy, but it did not say that the recommendations would be implemented. It said that the Home Office was working across government
“to identify how best to deliver against the recommendations … The lessons learned from”
the report
“will provide a fundamental basis for this work … and we hope to … get started … soon”.
I checked the King’s Speech, but there was no reference to it. I was aware of the First Reading of this Private Member’s Bill, so I parked it.
Then, earlier this month, Elon Musk raised the issue, doing so in a crude, misleading and immoral way. Initially, it was clear that he had no knowledge of the UK legal or parliamentary system, but that changed. He went directly for a Government Minister, Jess Phillips, who has an excellent record and now requires extra security. He went for the Prime Minister, who has not so far responded directly to Musk by name; even though an examination of his record as a prosecutor is excellent, he appeared to be pushed on to the back foot.
Musk has to be taken head on; he has massive weaknesses but is never seriously challenged. As Ian Hislop said in a recent interview, we should have cottoned on to how bad a person he was following the allegations he made towards those helping the young boys trapped in the Thailand caves in 2018. While the world went to help, Musk had no moral compass. It is strange that he failed to spot Jeffrey Epstein committing offences against young people in his own adopted country.
Ros Atkins, the BBC analysis editor, looked at 24 hours of Musk comments on Twitter on Monday 6 January—48% of the 153 posts were about the UK—and he found them wanting in accuracy. The conclusion was that Musk’s concern about grooming gangs does not extend to being truthful when discussing them. I am not at all clear why the Government are not being bold on Musk—turning the other cheek will not work.
Why was the IICSA report not in the King’s Speech? I asked our Library to check Hansard from both the Commons and the Lords, from 4 July to the end of December, on the issue of Professor Jay’s report. There are very few instances: a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood; a Question from Shaun Davies MP; a Question from me; and a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There have been other Questions on child sexual abuse relating to specific locations, the Church of England, devolution, the Met Police—but there were only four on the report.
The excellent Library staff also checked debates with a mention of the IICSA report. Speakers included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the King’s Speech; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in an Oral Question; the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the Second Reading of the home school education Bill; and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in the debate on social cohesion.
Those are the recorded questions. As to the answers, not a single one states clearly that the Government accept, and intend to implement, all 20 recommendations made by Professor Jay, between 4 July and the end of December. The same phrases—the line to take that I quoted earlier—are used throughout. They all avoid specific commitments; that is, until 6 January, when the Home Secretary made commitments to implement three key recommendations. I expect my noble friend the Minister to say something today about the other 17. It is crystal clear that urgent action on them—alongside more detailed inquiries, as called for by the MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion—should take place.
The PM needs to boldly take on Musk by name and defend all his Ministers. Appeasement to a bully invites more bullying. This House supports and thanks the Minister for Safeguarding, Jess Phillips, for the excellent work she has done and is doing. The UK is not in a world-leading position on this issue, and we need to get there fast.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, the sooner Musk goes to Mars the better.
I hugely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. A number of countries have introduced mandatory reporting. Of course, the results have varied depending on the country, the scope of the law and its enforcement, and the systems in place to support investigations and victims—and we can learn from their experiences. However, what is clear is that, where this has become the law, there has been a significant increase in the number of reported cases of sexual abuse. That clearly indicates that the very introduction of such laws raises awareness and encourages reporting by professionals, particularly teachers, doctors and social workers.
There are many examples of where mandatory reporting can be part of a strong safeguarding system. It can identify inappropriate relations, where a child is receiving excessive attention from an adult. It can notice signs of abuse. It can identify online exploitation, where a teacher or school counsellor becomes aware that a student is being coerced by an adult into sharing explicit images online. It can identify familial abuse, where a child confides in a social worker about being abused by an older sibling, cousin, parent or family friend. It can identify behavioural changes, where a child suddenly displays extreme changes in behaviour, such as aggression, withdrawal or fear of certain individuals. It can note what a child discloses during therapy, when a child shows signs of neglect or when a child is overheard describing sexual acts involving themselves and an adult. It can come across evidence of institutional abuse. The examples go on and on.
However, there are also challenges, which several Members have raised. When the many reports come in—because I trust that this legislation will be passed—they will not all meet the threshold for substantiated abuse, and therefore there will be a strain on resources. There is also the fear that mandatory reporting could deter victims or their families from seeking help; for example, in a healthcare setting, patients and/or their parents might withhold information from doctors out of concern that it will trigger a report. As has been raised, it can lead to false or unsubstantiated claims, which can cause immense harm to innocent accused individuals.
There are examples of overreporting, when professionals report cases out of a fear of legal consequences for failing to report, even when abuse is unlikely. There is also a danger that in situ—in healthcare, counselling, children’s social services, et cetera—mandatory reporting may harm trust between professionals and clients, especially if the clients fear legal or social repercussions. There are issues around breaches of confidentiality, retaliation and a fear of reporting, the risks of mismanagement where there is insufficient training, and harm to children where they are removed with insufficient cause.
However, it is the case that mandatory reporting laws have helped foster a societal shift towards recognising the seriousness of child sexual abuse, and awareness campaigns and the legal mandate have reduced tolerance for abuse in settings such as schools and religious and sports organisations. I hugely welcome the Bill. While there are things to watch out for with the introduction of mandatory reporting, which will come, the Government absolutely must address the challenges and fund—I emphasise: fund—the training that mandatory reporting will inevitably bring with it.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as we all do, for bringing forward this most important Bill, which I am sure will go through to full Committee and be passed.
Why is it so important? I served as chair of the Sexual Violence in Conflict Select Committee a while ago. We took evidence from all over the globe by Zoom. Our clerks were diligent, and we brought in more evidence of sexual abuse in conflict than has ever been gathered before. The single determinant was fascinating: it was that victims needed their societies to know that this had happened to them; in other words, this reporting is crucial.
All over the globe, the ladies who have been abused, as well as the few men—most of the men get killed when this happens, while the ladies manage to survive; they are still alive, but heavily damaged—then want their society to know what has happened to them. Curiously, they did not necessarily need it to go to court. What they needed to know was that their society accepted that something totally unacceptable had happened to them and that it was recognised. So this reporting is absolutely vital.
However, it also brings problems. There are more societies than not where the reporting of sexual abuse of a female has damaged her for life. This is extremely difficult. In certain faiths, religions and societies, once a girl is known to have been abused, she is dead wood. She can be abused again and again, because she is already gone.
Therefore, I wonder about something that has not yet been raised as prominently as I would suggest is necessary, from my experience: that parents are brought in. Initially it is the parents who will teach the child, girl or boy, who to worry about, how to behave, how to avoid them, and what they should be concerned about. We have magnificent teachers in this House, but we have not discussed the core people in a child’s life: the mother and father, and how they can help—how they can distinguish between good and bad and teach the child from very early on who they should be worried about.
I remember when I was a child that there was a gentleman, and we were all taught as children, “Don’t go near that man when you are going out for a walk”. It is the mother who knows this and senses it. It is the maternal instinct that shelters the child at the beginning. Therefore, my suggestion is that we might think about Saturday morning teaching for parents in schools, for example. There is a lot of Saturday morning teaching on other subjects, which is fantastic. What about how to protect your child?
My final point is that as a society, we have in my opinion given very mixed messages on what a child is. We demand that doctors give certain sorts of drugs to children of 13, 14 and 15. Are they a child if they can have access to contraceptives, for example? What is the definition of a child in the United Kingdom? As we look at this whole subject, with the upcoming debates on these dreadful happenings in other parts of the UK, we will have to discuss what we define as a child in the first place.
But so far, I welcome the Bill with the warmest possible support. It will make a huge difference to many children in the future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Baroness Grey-Thompson’s Bill is overdue and critically important, and she has worked tirelessly on it. I will address healthcare settings where, sadly, abuse has been shown to occur. We all remember the horror of Jimmy Savile’s catalogue of abuse that went back years, and the sense of disbelief that it could have gone on under the very noses of those in a position of trust.
The 2020 Truth Project revealed how vulnerabilities are heightened in the context of healthcare. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse revealed that 83% of those sexually abused in healthcare contexts reported it as sexual abuse by a healthcare professional. Furthermore, 48% reported that someone else in the institution knew about the sexual abuse. Many of the children who were sexually abused were unaware of whether other children were also being abused, and factors such as power dynamics were used by perpetrators to exercise that abuse. Characteristics of the healthcare context used by perpetrators to abuse included routine access to children, the power and authority they have as healthcare practitioners, children’s respect for adults’ authority, their lack of knowledge of normal examinations, and cultures of abuse that happen in some institutions. There are many reasons why children, or anyone, would not report, including not knowing that the behaviours are not okay, the fear of not being believed, feelings of shame and embarrassment, or having no one to whom they can disclose.
A key finding is that vulnerabilities are heightened in the context of healthcare due to the unique nature of the position of trust and authority occupied by healthcare practitioners. In addition, although many disclosed the sexual abuse to trusted adults such as parents or healthcare professionals during childhood, very few were believed and some were dismissed by healthcare professionals as sick, “crazy” or deluded.
For children to describe what happened and to later be able to give evidence against a perpetrator, they need a great deal of support, but not all victims have access to that. Back in the 1980s, I was a GP to three children’s homes. Despite suspicions, shamefully, we did not know how to help the children feel safe to disclose, and then one Christmas, the children themselves burned down one of the homes and all our suspicions became confirmed. Since then, all too often I have had patients with different problems say, “I never told anyone before” and then disclose deep trauma, often sexual abuse.
Those who become aware of abuse do not know where to go with their suspicions, or the best way to support the child, and they are often fearful of being accused of making a false accusation or fear recriminatory accusations from the abuser themselves, or from others. The no-detriment clause in the Bill is essential. It takes courage to report suspicions of something that you wish did not exist. That is why the system of taking knowledge of abuse to the local authority seems the safest option for both the victim and the reporter. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has helpfully produced Ben Mathews’ checklist as a great help for the Government in taking this forward. I am sure that all in this House hope that the Bill will become formally adopted in the principle in which it is written.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and note that when I was president of the Liberal Democrats I gave evidence to IICSA about historic abuse and how we tackle complaints these days. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who addressed healthcare settings and the shocking data that 40% of other healthcare professionals knew what was going on; I also thank her for her frankness in describing her experience as a GP for children’s homes. That also reflects the right reverend Prelate’s saying that it is time for a reset; we must admit when we ourselves have got things wrong.
I want to start by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on laying this Private Member’s Bill, which would make reporting and associated activities mandatory in order to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who has championed mandatory reporting for many years, and who spoke with such authority today.
In addition, I want to pay tribute to Mandate Now for its campaigning over many years, particularly Tom Perry, who retired as director last year, and Jonathan West, who has picked up the mantle. Both they and others have been fighting for years to ensure that there is a clear and formal route to reporting to the authorities, that staff and volunteers responsible for safeguarding understand their roles, and that they and their colleagues are trained to recognise concerns and what they must then do. Only with all these elements in place can we avoid cases where people have known what was going on but have done nothing to report it to a designated person. Only with all these elements in place will we have a well-designed mandatory reporting system.
In 1993, when I was a very new joint chair of education in Cambridgeshire, we received a complaint from a parent about a caretaker in a primary school. Upon investigation, it emerged that there had been sporadic complaints over the years but the head just did not believe them. Had those first suspicions been reported via mandatory reporting, many young girls would not have been abused over subsequent decades.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, led by Alexis Jay, catalogued the appalling consequences of this type of abuse, especially when perpetrated by those in a position of trust or power over the child and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was right to point out how many inquiries and reports into child physical and sexual abuse we have had over 50 years, and yet still things happen. What is the gap? There is clearly still a problem.
The 13th recommendation of the IICSA inquiry was for mandatory reporting, which would bring us nearer to the vast majority of other nations. A survey three years ago of 62 nations found that 80% of those participating had some form of mandatory reporting. With no statutory offence of failing to report suspicions, it is not clear who will have the power to investigate or even talk to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, told us that on average, it takes someone abused as a child 26 years to disclose. This means that other adults who interact with the child must be able to report suspicions, which can then be investigated by an outside professional, whether it is the LADO in the local authority or the police. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this means that false reporting, too, can be examined by professionals, who might recognise earlier that it is false reporting, rare though that is.
Unfortunately, the current proposals offered by IICSA in its recommendation 13 are weak and unlikely to affect reporting rates. I ask the Minister why the Government are not going to follow the examples of Australia, Canada and others, where adults in schools and other settings report that they are now much more confident in raising suspicions to ensure investigation because of the mandatory reporting frameworks. Mandatory reporting helps professional adults responsible for children by giving them a clear framework for taking such action.
By the way, as others have mentioned, this is not just a schools issue. It should cover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, regulated activities such as sports, ballet, drama, Scouts and Guides, and faith groups’ youth activities. We are seeing far too many scandals outside schools. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to point out that elite sports have a very particular problem.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Featherstone, were right to talk about resources being critical. Local government funds for children’s services are inadequate at present, perhaps contributing to delays in uncovering and dealing with cases.
The right reverend Prelate talked movingly about the Church of England having to have a complete reset in its approach to safeguarding, and that is very welcome. I believe this needs to happen in many other settings too, in particular in sports and children’s and youth activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, spoke of ensuring that staff are aware of child sexual activity and have proper training for that. She is right to mention a need for a new dialogue with children and young people. For too many years, it has focused on stranger danger, and we know that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse is committed by somebody known to children and young people.
Teachers in Western Australia who were unhappy with the principle of mandatory reporting prior to its introduction now say that it has given them more confidence to report suspicions and that they would not be ignored by the school or, worse, punished for reporting difficult evidence. Professor Ben Matthews from Queensland University of Technology, who is a world expert in mandatory reporting and how it works in practice, gave detailed evidence in 2019 to IICSA and provided it with his model Bill, which has now been used successfully in many countries around the world. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for using her time today to use Ben Matthews’s checklist against this Bill; it is an excellent base to use.
IICSA focused on historic abuse, and we delude ourselves if we think that it is not happening except in group settings. The vast majority of abuse is not outside the home; it is inside the home, by someone very close to the child. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, was right to focus on signs of behaviour noticed by teachers at school, nursery or in other settings. Suspicions must always be reported to designated people who are experts in investigating what has happened. If there is any chance of someone not reporting suspected abuse to a designated person, we will continue to have appalling cases where abusers are not caught and then repeat and repeat their foul abuse on other children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, helpfully pointed out that online groups and forums may now be a place where abuse is disclosed or alluded to. We need to plan how to cover that in legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, with her Select Committee experience, was right to say that reporting is the first step for victims to ensure that their communities know what has happened. One message that we keep hearing in all the cases emerging at the moment is how the victims feel re-victimised when it continues to happen and the processes for getting the information out just do not work.
I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, taking on board her concerns and those of others about the weaknesses of the IICSA model, and either support this Bill or produce their own. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right, and the Government are moving quickly to do this. I welcome that, but hope that they will use Professor Matthews’s checklist. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, outlined what has happened, and indeed what has not happened, since the general election last year.
Children cannot stop abuse; adults can. That is why we need mandatory reporting for abuse. That is why we need this Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this Bill today. Over many years, I have been involved with the investigation of the sexual abuse of babies through to paedophilia, and this goes on right underneath the noses of the people who are meant to protect these children. I welcome the Bill and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tireless work on this issue and for bringing the Bill to the House. The Bill is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity, and it addresses one of the greatest and gravest breaches of trust in our society: the failure to protect children from the atrocious crime of sexual abuse, whether that is in sport, education or elsewhere.
I am sure that many noble Lords will have an opinion on this subject, with the sickening news on grooming gangs. I do not wish to waver drastically from the subject of the noble Baroness’s Bill, and will focus on its contents rather than the broader political issues. However, I must reiterate my plea to the Minister that a full-scale inquiry into child sexual exploitation is called for. I ask the Minister to join the Mayor of Manchester in calling for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
We should all understand the importance of safeguarding our communities and the necessity of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to grow up safe and secure. This Bill embodies those principles. It seeks to enshrine in law a duty to report suspected child sexual abuse, placing the protection of our most vulnerable above all else. It thoughtfully protects mandated reporters from detriment, which will undoubtedly ensure that whistleblowers in institutions where abuse is prevalent are encouraged to come forward. Finally, it creates a criminal offence of failing to report prescribed concerns. This Bill shows just how seriously His Majesty’s Government should take the issue of child sexual abuse.
The Bill will help rebuild trust in the institutions that serve our communities, be they schools, places of worship, sports clubs, healthcare providers or any other setting. Recent scandals have exposed not just the horrifying prevalence of child sexual abuse but the systematic failures to act when abuse was suspected or known. Mandatory reporting will ensure that those entrusted with the care of children understand their responsibility to act when they suspect wrongdoing.
The introduction of mandatory reporting is about fostering a culture of vigilance. It is about ensuring that no child’s cry for help goes unheard and no perpetrator is left to abuse again. That is at the heart of the Bill, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We fully recognise that there is a duty on those with positions of responsibility to shield the innocent from harm. Like schoolteachers, priests and doctors, we in this House have a duty of care over the vulnerable. It comes with the position of trust that has been placed on us as legislators. I ask the Minister to commit to protecting children by supporting the noble Baroness’s Bill.
Child sexual abuse leaves lasting scars, not only on the victims but on families and communities. By ensuring swift intervention, this Bill will help mitigate the long-term damage caused by abuse, offering victims the opportunity to receive support and justice sooner. Moreover, it reinforces the principle that communities must stand together in defence of their children. The duty to report is not a bureaucratic imposition; it is an ethical obligation that unites us all in the common cause of protecting the young.
This Bill will enhance the UK’s standing as a global leader in child protection. By enacting mandatory reporting, we send a clear message: the United Kingdom will not tolerate the abuse of children and will hold those who turn a blind eye accountable. The Bill is a vital step forward in our collective duty to protect the innocent. It provides a robust framework to ensure that those who work with children understand their responsibilities and act decisively to safeguard the welfare of children.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said, child sexual abuse is real and it is happening. I urge all noble Lords to support the Bill. Let us demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the safety and well-being of our children. Let us act decisively to ensure that silence can no longer shield abusers from justice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. This Government are committed to taking action to keep children safe online, in our communities and around the world. In line with our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, this Government will also work to improve the response to, and outcomes of, child sexual abuse for women, children and girls.
In that spirit I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward the Bill. Through her, I also thank a range of voluntary organisations including Mandate Now and Barnardo’s, which were mentioned, for their support for the Bill and the proposals brought forward today.
Timing is all. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know that I can give notice that the Government are reflecting very seriously on these matters. I stress again that this Government are firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, whether it happens online or in the community. That is why we want to take swift action on delivering against the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which I will talk in a moment.
I want to start with the really important points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Some 3.1 million adults have been subjected to child sexual abuse, according to the figures she brought forward today. The consequences of that were ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in relation to the impact on people not just at the time but throughout their lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned resistance to reporting, which is extremely important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, showed how in sport, in the health service and in healthcare, child abuse is prevalent and needs to be tackled. This mandating of reporting will have a great impact on our ability to reduce that.
My noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned that he has done a good trawl of what has happened since 4 July last year. I hope to reassure him by saying that not all that happens in government is public at any particular point in time. A great deal of work had been done by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Minister, Jess Phillips, up to the time when external forces—as I shall call them—put out comments around this issue over the Christmas and new year period. My noble friend will note that yesterday, through my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government set out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. We will report to both Houses of Parliament before Easter, including on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her contribution.
Four of the recommendations in the IICSA report were specifically for my department, the Home Office. Yesterday, again, we gave a commitment that we have been working on these issues—having been a Minister, my noble friend Lord Rooker knows what these things are like—not just in the past 10 days but for many months. We have accepted the four recommendations specifically for the Home Office, which include mandatory reporting—the subject of today’s Bill—and disclosure and barring. Work is under way to deliver those commitments in a legislative form, which will come before the House shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned gangs. I want to respond to him on that issue. In the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—I suspect it might be repeated in this House shortly, if the Opposition so wish—there were clear commitments to take forward work on gangs and grooming, including funding and inquiries. It also included the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, taking forward further examination of data issues, which have been mentioned in today’s debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I pay tribute to the work that she has done—shared with me an amendment that she brought forward some 10 years ago. It shows great foresight, as I would expect from someone born in the same part of Liverpool as I was. She brought forward a checklist. Again, we will bring forward our proposals in due course; she can then check her list against the proposals from the Government. The international work informed the work of IICSA, which she mentioned. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the intention of this legislation, and his points are worthy of consideration in relation to this Bill.
I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on her tireless efforts in bringing this duty forward, which I fully appreciate. As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations on mandatory reporting. I hope we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and that we must apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up this type of abuse.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both previously and today, in raising the importance of public awareness of individuals’ ability to bring forward recommendations and undertake mandatory reporting provisions. The Minister for Safeguarding, my friend Jess Phillips, is committed to working closely with survivor and expert groups on bringing forward legislation, and will continue to do so. I hope we can draw on the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in that final commitment. I give her the commitment that I have just given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. She asked, “When?”, and I say to her, “Very soon. Watch out in the next few weeks. When it comes, recognise that the work has been ongoing and was happening prior to any contributions from individuals who talk about this, with not much knowledge, from places outside the United Kingdom”.
The 20 recommendations made by the inquiry’s final report were referenced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton, Lady Nicholson and Lady Berridge. They will be taken forward and reported to both Houses by Easter this year.
My noble friend Lady Blower made some extremely important points about training, support and back-up for the people who will deal with this issue. This requires some long-term work. I know that Members of this House are impatient and want things to happen but I also know that they want things to be done correctly, with this Government addressing these issues in a way that makes intervention effective. So I say to my noble friend—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who mentioned funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who discussed how we can enact these things—that there will be an impact assessment with the legislation that we bring forward. Therefore, there will be a delivery mechanism and delivery plan behind the legislation that we bring forward.
In developing their recommendation on mandatory reporting, the Government will consider very strongly all the issues that have been brought forward in this House today. The 20 recommendations are complex and require long-term work but, again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there will be a clear timetable for progress against the inquiry’s recommendations by Easter. I hope that is helpful.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that we are happy and content to work with the Church in looking at its experiences, about which she spoke openly and honestly today. We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made. It is not just in teaching and other capacities that this is undertaken: the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned family and parental support, which is an interesting area in terms of how we look at these issues in a realistic way.
I want to touch on the issue of false allegations, which has been a seam through these discussions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all mentioned false allegations. Although they are thankfully rare, the experience of our former colleague Lord Brittan and others have shown that they have a devastating effect on the accused individual, as well as harming how we approach genuine victims and survivors. I will be very clear with the House today: when the Government bring forward a duty of mandatory reporting, sharing information with the appropriate agencies will be part of it. However, it will be for the agencies to determine guilt or innocence accordingly, and it will be for the agencies to take forward appropriate action to support and safeguard the child involved.
The contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has made today is timely, important and on the button in relation to the absolute requirement of Parliament to help safeguard children in the future. As she knows, her Bill will progress and potentially go into Committee at some point in the future. It will have its discussions in this House and potentially progress to the House of Commons at some point. However, I give her this clear assurance, and I hope she accepts it as such: this Government will introduce measures that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, and others can test. They will be introduced in legislation shortly, and we hope will be put on the statute book, and they will meet the obligations of the IICSA recommendations in their potential impact and the desire of this House to ensure that we safeguard and protect children.
Those measures will be introduced soon. Whatever happens to the Private Member’s Bill, I hope that the House, whatever its views and considerations on the clauses brought forward in the Government’s wider legislation, gives the government Bill a fair wind to ensure that we protect children. The one clear message from the House today has been that we want action to ensure that mandatory reporting takes place. I give your Lordships the assurance from the Dispatch Box that action will happen.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone in your Lordships’ Chamber for the thoughtful and powerful nature of the debate. It is apparent that there is widescale support for a form of mandatory reporting. I will pick up a few specific points.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton; I have had the most significant contact on this clause and under which circumstances there could be exemption. Personally, I saw the ability to apply exemptions as a safety net, but I look forward to exploring this in more detail.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We are both very privileged to have seen the best of sport, but our experience also gives some indication of why people have previously not reported. That should be a thing of the past.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised some important points on the continuing threat of people still not reporting. We should not let that go under the radar. The noble Baroness’s experience in online safety is also vital as we move forward, as we must not devise legislation—this or a government Bill—that is out of date before it is completed, but ensure that it is fit for the future.
It seems that we have been overtaken slightly by recent announcements. I again thank the honourable Jess Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for meeting yesterday. They recognise that there are decades of experience in your Lordships’ Chamber which is on hand to move this forward. I look forward to working with His Majesty’s Government, whether on this or another Bill, to get the right legislation on the statute book. In closing, I repeat the words of the IICSA Changemakers:
“Effective and timely reporting is a vital part of a well functioning child protection system”.
Finally, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate today and those who have contributed from outside. Many are waiting for answers. I welcome the Minister’s “soon”. I recognise that it is necessary parliamentary language, but your Lordships’ Chamber understands what that means. We will all be pressing for sooner rather than later. I welcome all suggestions to ensure that we create watertight, effective legislation to protect our children. We will keep pressing mandatory reporting in its entirety. Today, we have a duty to move at the right but speedy pace, with the right legislation, to further protect our children for generations to come.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next debate, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time for speeches in this debate is four minutes. I hope your Lordships can stick to that, because we have business going on after this debate and it will enable the House to rise at a reasonable time.
Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have helped draft this Bill. I specifically highlight the contributions of all the cross-sectoral stakeholders who took part in the round table I hosted last year. I will also single out Jen Mills at the Legislation Office, who was instrumental in shaping the Bill into a deliverable form, alongside Pete Kennedy for his work on the legal grounding. I also thank Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience, who conceived of this Bill, has been advocating for it since he joined my office in 2021 and continues to support it; and a succession of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy interns who have helped me to this point. It is a great pleasure to see so many noble Lords here; I thank you all.
I will start by explaining the motivation and rationale behind bringing forward the Bill. It aims to curtail the general sale and subsequent spread on to human bodies and into the environment of consumer products intended for human use that contain biocides. Noble Lords will hear me repeat this phrase, “consumer products intended for human use” several times today. It is an important phrase to convey the narrow scope of the targeted and well-evidenced policy interventions contained in the Bill.
For the purpose of the Bill, biocides are chemicals that have an antimicrobial effect—they kill bacteria and other micro-organisms. It may strike members of the public tuning into this debate as strange to want to spare bacteria; after all, the public have been told for many years that “killing 99.9% of bacteria” is a desirable feature of many products. Your Lordships will probably see an advert today saying just that, but this could not be more wrong. It is high time we reclaimed the narrative around bacteria on our bodies, in our bodies and in our environments.
I will be clear about one thing: the Bill does not, in any way, shape or form restrict the ability of qualified medical professionals to provide medicines to patients in need. It also in no way impacts on veterinary treatments or products for animals. It concerns consumer products intended for human use and only those. There are very valid use cases for biocide-containing products, such as mouthwashes with chlorhexidine sold by a qualified pharmacist to patients suffering from mouth ulcers; octenidine-containing soaps prescribed by dermatologists to patients suffering from a range of skin conditions; silver-impregnated dressings for wound care; and more. I reiterate that the passage of the Bill into law would have no effect whatever on the use of these products in medicine. My aim is to protect the ongoing functioning of these products in medicine by curtailing their commercial availability and overuse.
We are behind the times when it comes to regulating biocides in consumer products intended for human use. In 2016, almost a decade ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration banned 19 biocides from hand soaps and handwashes. Why? Very simply, in the words of one FDA official:
“There’s no data demonstrating that these drugs provide additional protection from diseases and infections”.
This official went on to say that
“some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term”.
This is a key point to which I will return.
The FDA has continued its campaign to educate Americans on the non-superiority of biocide-containing consumer products. As recently as last month, it published a press release titled “Skip the Antibacterial Soap; Use Plain Soap and Water”. It did this because a decade later, despite all the follow-up studies commissioned by the industry, the fact remains, as the FDA states,
“there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that over-the-counter … antibacterial soaps are better at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water”.
The FDA chose to limit the scope of its advice to soaps—I have not. Antibacterial hand sanitisers, mouthwashes and oral products are also in the scope of the Bill. As an article published today in the Daily Mirror, coinciding with this Second Reading, outlines, biocides are found in many consumer products intended for human use, and members of the public are often unwittingly purchasing and using these products, with potentially negative effects.
It is widely recognised that there is no advantage in these biocides being present in soaps. Noble Lords may wonder whether that is the full extent of my grievance— it is not. I have worked closely with the Women’s Environmental Network—often known as WEN—which runs the brilliant Environmenstrual campaign. As a politician, feminism is one of my first politics. I was horrified when WEN highlighted to me that period products are being laced with silver and sold to women on the basis that periods make them smell bad. This is an example of the pernicious kind of advertising that underpins the sale of many biocide-containing products intended for human use. Consumers are shamed and made to feel dirty for having normal, natural microbiomes or carrying out normal bodily functions such as sweating or menstruating.
Swedish government research has shown that up to 90% of the silver in treated articles for reusable menstrual products flows out into waterways after only 10 washes. This is a pointless and dangerous use of biocides that is spreading fast into clothing products often marketed as high-tech, desirable and expensive—a trend that urgently needs to be addressed.
The use of biocides leads to a rise in resistance to biocides—a form of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Added to commercial use undermining the medical use of the same biocides is the threat of cross-resistance. That is when exposure to one antimicrobial, such as the biocide in mouthwash, leads to resistance to a different antimicrobial, such as the antibiotic of last resort for a critically ill patient. There is a detailed case study on this, which I prepared with Dr Fady and Dr Katy Stokes, in the briefing paper for the Bill. It is available on the BSAC website if noble Lords would like more information.
In 2022, I was the first to raise the issue of cross-resistance in this place in over a quarter of a century. That such a pernicious issue has been discussed only nine times across both Chambers since its first mention in 1973 shows that we are not taking cross-resistance seriously. But health authorities in this country are aware of the risk, with scientists at the UKHSA describing biocide resistance as
“a new scourge of the infectious disease world”
because of the problem of cross-resistance.
Thanks in large part to the determined, concentrated work of Dame Sally Davies, many Members of your Lordships’ House will have at least heard of antimicrobial resistance. Perhaps noble Lords read the large article in the Observer this month. But the real urgency and scale of this problem has not yet really struck in government, in the corridors or departments of the Civil Service, or among the general public. Every 11 seconds, someone falls ill with a resistant infection. Every three minutes, someone in the world dies from AMR. By the time we finish this Second Reading in about 90 minutes, there will have been 30 deaths from AMR globally. The British charity Nesta said in 2019 that that was the first year in which
“we’ll all know someone with a drug-resistant infection”.
Whether that is an untreatable recurrent urinary tract infection, a recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcer, or simply a chest infection that does not respond to the first round of antibiotics, it is almost certain that Nesta’s analysis was correct.
Beyond undermining our antibiotics, the widespread availability of biocide-containing consumer products for human use poses another threat: microbiotoxicity. That is a fancy way of saying damage to the human microbiome—the community of microorganisms living on and inside us. We are increasingly starting to understand the importance of these microorganisms in health and disease. In the Mental Health Bill, I spoke about the gut-brain axis and our slowly dawning understanding of the importance of the microbiome in mental illness.
Impact on other bodily systems is also becoming clearer. Research has shown, for example, that wiping out the oral microbiome with chlorhexidine mouthwashes risks increasing blood pressure, which has consequences for the risk of heart disease.
Alongside brilliant scientists and clinicians, I recently published a letter to the editor in the Journal of Infection calling for the recognition of the human microbiome as an organ system. I would be happy to circulate this to any noble Lords interested.
I should address the environmental angle. The unimpeded flow of biocides into our waterways is undoubtedly a bad thing. As was confirmed to me this week at a meeting of the Pharma Pollution Hub, a new and exciting initiative engaging with this crucial issue, we have yet to be able to model exactly how all the various chemicals mixing together in our waterways and water are affecting our environment. This is known as the “cocktail effect” and entails complex dynamics and interrelationships that are extremely difficult to quantify. A fundamental truth, however, is that the fewer chemicals and biocides there are in our waterways—I would add microplastics—the less they can interact and exert their effects on our aquatic species, our entire ecosystems and, of course, ultimately, our bodies.
If for no other reason than the precautionary principle, to which the previous Government committed us through the Environment Act, I hope noble Lords can see the sense in the Bill trying to curtail the amount of biocides ending up in our environment. I will postpone to another day comments on the soil microbiomes that are crucial to our food security. I have not run through the clauses and mechanisms of the Bill because the excellent Library briefing does that very clearly and I wanted to take some time to set out what are still not widely familiar scientific principles.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for taking part in this debate at my request. I apologise for possibly messing up his Friday. The Bill seeks to take what I believe is a novel approach to product regulation and I particularly value his thoughts on the approach taken, although it is based on the model from several other Bills.
We have what is known colourfully as a whack-a-mole problem when it comes to chemicals regulation. A novel chemical is produced, tested by the manufacturer in the ways it chooses, then put on to the market. As problems emerge, campaigners speak out, companies resist, and, usually decades later, that single chemical is eventually banned. A new chemical, possibly similar, often worse in its impacts, is then devised, and we go back through the same cycle. We have seen this with PFAS, the forever chemicals that are of such public concern. The Bill seeks to set us on a new path—to modestly and practically start to tackle the exceeding of the planetary boundaries for novel entities that has turned our rivers, seas and environments into such a dangerous cocktail of substances.
I say to the Minister that we are, of course, debating this Bill while the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is going through your Lordships’ House, so there is an opportunity for the Government to pick this up holus-bolus and incorporate it into that Bill. I live in hope.
Finally, I often say that the first duty of the state is to ensure the health of its citizens. My vision of the Green Party is that we are a party of public health—of one health. Although the Bill embodies many of the principles we in the Green Party uphold, it is absolutely not a partisan Bill. It is in everyone’s best interest to prevent harm to human health and to the health of our environment. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support this Bill, and to have the opportunity not merely to applaud its intentions and drafting but to pay tribute to its sponsor, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
When I read the Bill, I was reminded of an interview with Bill Frankland, the pioneering immunologist, who recalled his time in 1936 studying under Sir Alexander Fleming at Imperial College. Fleming, who was born and educated at both primary and secondary level in my former constituency, in Ayrshire in the west of Scotland, recounted in a lecture his discovery of penicillin. He ended it with a warning that penicillin would change the face of medicine, but that
“doctors will overuse it … bacteria have to survive—they are very, very clever—they will become resistant to it”.
If the father of antibiotic medicine was making this case at that distance, how much more urgent is it that we act today and as fast as possible? We are, as the noble Baroness made clear in her excellent opening speech, in a perilous situation. Antibiotics are one of the most extraordinary and transformative products of human ingenuity, but their efficacy is being undermined, not merely by the extraordinary adaptive qualities of bacteria but by the failure of humans effectively to regulate their own behaviour.
Despite its less than poetic title, the Bill is about human behaviour where collective and individual rights find themselves in conflict. Peer-reviewed scientific literature has shown us repeatedly that the use of antibacterial soap containing biocides offers no advantage whatever to the average consumer compared with normal soap, but marketing has convinced consumers that it is in some way preferable.
That is why Clause 6 is important. It aims purely to align perception with reality and ensure that implicit but misleading claims that a consumer product containing biocides is more effective than one without should be an offence, unless the biocidal consumer products advisory board, to be created under Clause 3, deems that claim true and verifiable.
It cannot be right that commercial imperatives that mandate the inclusion of unnecessary biocides in commercial products are allowed to trump the interest of everyone on the planet to ensure that antimicrobial resistance is controlled. I do not set myself up as a scientific expert of any sort, but it is precisely because I am not a scientist that I believe we should take precautionary measures in the face of uncertainty, even from scientists whose insight into the impact of biocides dwarfs my own.
Crucially, once antimicrobial resistance is established, it is irreversible. That fact only reinforces my belief that the precautionary principle that animates the Bill should be adhered to. Even the US, which often takes a more buccaneering approach to questions of capitalism than we do in the United Kingdom, has begun banning the use of biocides in washes and soaps, with the FDA having issued guidance not to buy antimicrobial soaps, as we have heard.
In my contribution to the debate on the Private Member’s Bill that preceded this one, I was forced to have recourse to humility, conceding that other noble Lords from all sides of the House had more expertise and direct experience of the matter in question than I did. I may be breaking a personal record in conceding that twice in a row. I therefore look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate and becoming better informed.
I started this short contribution with a reference to Alexander Fleming. I will make a further one. In 2008, on the 80th anniversary of the discovery of penicillin, I invited Professor Hugh Pennington, the emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen and then the leading bacteriologist in the country, to speak to schoolchildren in my constituency. He told them that life on this planet is a competition between the bugs and us—humans. The bugs have been around for 3.5 billion years; we have been around for only 300,000 years. We are likely to lose if we are not careful.
In short, because this Bill is on the side of Homo sapiens, I support its aims and, whether in this form or the form of future government Bills, I very much look forward to seeing them given legislative expression as soon as possible.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her success in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and on bringing forward this Bill this Session. Her Bill gives the House the opportunity to consider the implications of the use of biocides in consumer products and reflect on the crucial importance of controlling and containing antimicrobial resistance—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, just cogently referred.
My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when Prime Minister, was determined to tackle the threat to human health posed by AMR. Way back in 2014, he stated:
“Resistance to antibiotics is now a very real and worrying threat, as bacteria mutate to become immune to their effects … If we fail to act, we are looking at an almost unthinkable scenario where antibiotics no longer work and we are cast back into the dark ages of medicine where treatable infections and injuries will kill once again”.
I am therefore pleased that the Labour Government support the previous Conservative Government’s 20-year vision for tackling AMR, which aims to control and contain it by 2040. I hope the Government will work closely at an international level on these matters to continue to press forward with a coherent global response. That should mean working not only with nations and the World Health Organization but with business and the world of science.
The noble Baroness proposes in her Bill to constrain further the use of biocides in some consumer products. She is justifiably concerned about the impact on AMR that could result from biocide resistance. When legislation is brought forward to restrict the manufacture and sale of goods on the basis of perceived public health safety, it is right that one should examine whether measures are already in place that can protect the public. I therefore note that biocidal active substances and biocidal products are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations. Of course, many consumer products are regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Defra, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency all have a locus in this matter.
It is always difficult to draft legislation that seeks to protect public health by banning something without also having a negative impact on innovation and imposing the requirement on business to comply with new, complex regulatory processes. Sometimes it is right to do so, but the devil is always in the detail.
I note that Clause 3 would create yet another quango: the biocidal consumer products advisory board. We need more information about that in the Bill. I note that the Government, in just over five months, have already established a raft of advisory bodies—quangos galore. I really had hoped not to see more.
It would be helpful to explore in Committee some of the interesting but vague terms used in the Bill. I think of the wording “real-world conditions” in Clause 2—I would love to find out how those can be legally defined. I look forward to the opportunity in Committee to have time to give more and better consideration to what can be an important Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear her concerns about there being too many advisory bodies and quangos. There is always a difficulty in knowing what they do and how they report. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing the Bill forward.
Perhaps I might add another quote from Sir Alexander Fleming. When he received the Nobel prize for discovering penicillin, which he did at the medical school that I went to, St Mary’s, he said:
“It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them”.
That lesson might apply much more widely because, sadly, it applies to our armamentarium of antibiotics, and we now face a world where multiple resistance is becoming the norm. Professor MacLellan’s recent, fascinating lecture at the Royal Society described the urgent need to develop vaccines against some of the major bacterial killers. In 2022, 7.7 million deaths were attributable to bacterial infections worldwide, of which 80% were linked to antimicrobial resistance.
With rising antibiotic use, resistance is increasing, but biocides are not the solution. Biocides are a diverse group of poisonous substances, including preservatives, insecticides, disinfectants and pesticides, used for the control of organisms that are harmful to human or animal health or that cause damage to natural or manufactured products. The problem is that these chemicals are themselves harmful, both directly and by producing the cross-resistance and co-resistance to antimicrobials already referred to. When bacteria develop cross-resistance, their general defence mechanism is against multiple threats, both the biocides in consumer products and the antibiotics we use to fight infection. Meanwhile, co-resistance takes place when resistant genes are genetically linked. So there are two mechanisms, at least, and exposure to common biocides can inadvertently promote antibiotic resistance.
These manufactured chemicals are subject to little legal constraint, as already outlined, and almost no post-marketing surveillance. Fewer than 20% overall have been tested for toxicity, yet many cross the placenta, and chemical exposure seems even more harmful to children than to adults. Biocides act by damaging the cell wall of an organism, but that is not discriminatory. They also damage the cell wall of our own body’s living cells that they come into contact with. That is often our skin and the delicate cells of our respiratory tract. If the skin is irritated, a contact dermatitis develops; this is an eczema-like response that is itchy and sore, and the skin cracks, breaking the natural barrier function of the skin and allowing bacteria to enter and infect underlying tissues. An allergic response is separate and can also develop, as in allergic dermatitis and in asthma, which can be life-threatening. We all have protective commensal bacteria on our skin and in our gut and mucous membranes, but when they are damaged by biocides, harm results. Many cosmetics and some period products are being marketed as biocidal, but without the appropriate risk-assessment evidence.
The Bill would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board, which I would welcome, to review scientific and social evidence on the use of biocides in consumer products, with a particular focus on microbiotoxicity. With rising incidence of childhood cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, allergies and childhood obesity, not to mention the rising infection rate, it is becoming negligent, to ignore the possible role of manufactured chemicals in our daily lives—hence the importance of the precautionary approach outlined in the Bill.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her comprehensive introduction of the Bill, which brings forward issues that the House and the Government should take seriously. The world faces any number of threats to human health, but one of the more long-term threats we face continues to be antimicrobial resistance—AMR—which is the risk that in future bacteria will be resistant to antibiotics.
I thank the Royal Society of Biology for the briefing that it provided for this debate. I should add that I am a fellow and emphasise that the briefing does not represent the formal position of the RSB but is what you might call a rapid reaction summary based on relevant external reports from RSB member organisations and external bodies. Nevertheless, it is a very helpful briefing to have received.
We know a lot more than we used to about what is called the human microbiome, yet perhaps people do not fully understand yet how complex it is and how vital it is to our health. The microbiome is the collection of microbes in our intestines that affect our digestion, immune system, brain health and more. The Royal Society of Biology points out that “perspectives are complex” on the use of biocides. Why is that? It is because the use presents both opportunities and risks. The use case for biocides includes their contribution to the protection of public health through infection control by reducing the spread of harmful pathogens—for example, in health facilities and food production—but among the potential risks is that the use of biocides can contribute to the development of AMR and hence significant global public health risks.
Whatever one’s view on the Bill, the fact remains that biocides are found in consumer products intended for human use. These products range from soaps to mouthwashes to clothes to period products. I add in passing that some biocidal products do not list on the packet ingredients such as products containing nanosilver, about which there is growing concern, especially in relation to feminine hygiene products.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because there is evidence to suggest that the uncontrolled use of biocides may be increasing AMR. I have noticed that in the scientific literature there is great emphasis on the need for a deeper understanding of the interaction with and impact of pesticides, insecticides and biocides on the microbial communities. We do not want to find that the increased use of biocides accidentally damages the highly complex world of microorganisms. On this basis, I think there is a case that the complexity of biocides risks calls for a precautionary approach.
I want to mention one other aspect of the broader debate about AMR. I am a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, and on Tuesday this week, we had a really interesting presentation about bacteriophages, which are viruses that can control and kill bacteria, including some of the most deadly known to humankind, such as sepsis. It may be stretching the boundaries of today’s debate to refer to phages, but I will be interested in anything that the noble Baroness says in her winding-up remarks about their relevance to the broader impact and objectives of her Bill.
To return to the Bill, I pass on to the House the advice of the Royal Society of Biology:
“There are challenges to ensuring the responsible use of biocides, especially in terms of regulation, adoption, and education, which can limit their effectiveness”.
On this basis, I hope that my noble friend the Minister, even if he is not in a position formally to convey government support for this Bill at this moment, will nevertheless take back to the relevant department some of the questions that arise. I shall briefly mention four.
First, will the Government be prepared to take a detailed look at the use of biocides in consumer products? Secondly, will the Government consider establishing their own biocidal consumer products advisory board or something similar to keep under review the scientific evidence? Thirdly, will the Government at least consent to the proposition that if there are grounds to believe that a biocidal product is deemed to present a danger, steps can be taken to ban its sale or use? Finally, will the Government undertake to report to Parliament regularly on the impact of biocides in consumer products? These seem perfectly sensible questions to ask, and whether or not this Bill makes progress I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for introducing this Bill, and I thank those who preceded me for enhancing a little my scientific education. I shall comment not on the science of the Bill but on an important general development, which is making certain that the law keeps pace with our greater knowledge of science and adapts itself. Therefore, I want to speak about Clause 2, not so much about its detailed wording, because I see the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made about particular words, as that is not the purpose of a Second Reading debate. It is important because paragraphs (b) and (c) raise issues that we have to grapple with.
Our criminal law was developed over the centuries in times when punishments were particularly harsh and trials were fast. Steps were gradually taken to try to ameliorate that harshness and make the conviction of someone for a criminal offence fairer and more just. It became an important part of our criminal law that where the resources of the state were vast, it was for the state to establish the elements of the offence and prove them beyond reasonable doubt or making sure.
Parliament has for some time taken a slightly different approach, which I want to mention because it is akin to this provision, and the law generally proceeds by building on what has gone in the past. For some time, it has been the policy of Parliament, accepted by the courts, to transfer certain matters, where they lie particularly within the knowledge of the defendant before the court, to the defendant raising and establishing evidence of that issue. In most cases, because of the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the burden of disproving the defence and showing that the offence is established is left to the state and the prosecution, the burden on the defence being merely evidential. However, there are certain circumstances where the legal burden rests upon the defendant to establish a particular defence.
I say that this provision is akin to that, and it is on that that we should build. It seems to me that this provision has at least four particularly important advantages. First, it places the responsibility at the outset firmly upon the manufacturer, and that is critical. Secondly, it ought to ensure that the manufacturer keeps what he is doing under review to ensure that it is safe. Thirdly, there is far too much regulation, and industry should think: is this sort of provision of self-responsibility not better placed on the manufacturer? That may be harsh and the consequences down the line may be severe, but is this not a better way forward? Fourthly, it is realistic to realise that the state is not equipped, certainly in the area of criminal justice, with the resources that it once had.
I therefore welcome this type of provision. I hope we shall see more provisions of this kind, because we constantly need to rethink and evaluate the regulatory burden that is placed and what the criminal law can do to reduce that burden.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, from cosmetics and personal care items to treated clothing, biocides are increasingly found in products that we all use regularly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling this Bill to enable us to consider that in more detail.
While biocides have their place in specific essential applications, their widespread and often unnecessary inclusion in everyday products poses a significant threat to public health, contributing to the growing global crisis of antimicrobial resistance. We have heard today about the current impact on resistant diseases. The World Health Organization has identified AMR as one of the most urgent health crises of our time; unless we take action, it could lead to an estimated 10 million deaths annually by 2050.
Biocides and consumer goods, especially those that are not strictly necessary, contribute to this alarming trend. Many products containing biocides do not deliver any real health benefit and may in fact do more harm than good, undermining their effectiveness in driving antimicrobial resistance. Just one example is the concern around the use of silver, as we heard today, as an antimicrobial agent in period pants, where high levels could have health and environmental implications. In addition to the problems highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her introduction, the US Food and Drug Administration found that nanosilver can kill lactobacillus, the healthy bacteria in the vagina that helps fight off infection. That can put women more at risk of harmful bacteria, potentially leading to an increased risk of bacterial infections and pregnancy complications. In the UK there are currently no legal limits on how much silver can be added to period pants, and manufacturers do not have to declare the presence of silver on their packaging or website.
We are seeing other countries take measures to ban some biocides from consumer products, and it is right that we are looking at our regulatory system carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Of course we must protect against regulation that would stifle innovation or limit products that genuinely benefit consumer health, and there certainly are legitimate uses for biocides, as we have heard. I am reassured that the Bill provides specific exemptions for proven medical products.
Clause 3 would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board to advise Ministers on biocides. I share my noble friend Lady Anelay’s aversion to quangos, but I am also a great believer in expert advice, particularly on complex scientific matters such as this. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. Does he agree that this expert advice would be beneficial to Ministers when making decisions in this area?
Clause 6 looks to address the issues around the marketing of false or unproved claims. Consumers must have transparency from manufacturers. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the responsibility for this should be considered to be put at the manufacturers’ door. We regularly see messages about the importance of antibacterial or antimicrobial properties in consumer products, and we have the right to know what ingredients are in the products we buy and if they genuinely offer significant health benefits. We should also have the option to choose products that are free from unnecessary chemicals. While there is existing consumer protection against misleading and deceptive commercial practices, I can certainly see the case for more specific guidance here.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay set out, there are existing protections for consumers and we must be very careful not to overregulate, duplicate or complicate the existing regulation. But we must move towards responsible biocide use, ensuring that they are used only when they are truly necessary and excluding them from products that do not require antimicrobial action. The Bill gives us the opportunity to consider our current framework and whether we should be strengthening regulations around the use of biocides in consumer goods, to ensure that the products marketed for daily use are safe and effective but do not contribute to AMR. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, it is a long time since the only good microbe was considered to be a dead microbe, but, even as I sat here in my office in Parliament, I noticed that we have been issued with an antimicrobial spray that claims that it kills 99.9% of bacteria. I will come back to that spray in a bit.
Our understanding of the microbial world has changed enormously in recent decades, and it is bound to continue to do so. Many people are now aware of the complexities and the importance of our gut microbiome. Far fewer know about our skin microbiome or the vaginal microbiome, yet researchers are uncovering their importance as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just mentioned, research evidence that douching and other practices that affect the vaginal microbiome can increase the risks of infections and potentially affect fertility is coming to light. Our microbiomes are delicate systems, intricately linked with our health. The idea, then, that any product such as wipes, sprays, clothes or, worst of all, sanitary products containing chemicals explicitly to kill microbes should be marketed to consumers at all, let alone without clear labelling of what they contain and what those substances are doing, seems extraordinary to me.
In fact, it seems so extraordinary that I looked at the Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on biocidal products authorisation. I took the spray from my parliamentary office and looked at the ingredients. It has a proud union flag on it and comes from a British manufacturer. It lists the active ingredient, which I checked against the HSE spreadsheet of biocidal chemicals. It was categorised as not approved for any use in the UK. This was literally the first product I checked and, once I started looking, I found that it was far from an isolated case. Many similar antimicrobial sprays and wipes for sale on our high street seem to contain substances on that not approved list. Maybe this is a problem of enforcement, but, as a confused consumer, I continued to investigate. Next, I looked at treated articles, such as odour-reducing socks. The first pair I found advertised claimed to contain real silver fibres. I checked, and silver is labelled as not authorised on the HSE’s biocidal regulation spreadsheet, and apparently cannot be used to treat products.
I asked whether I might be misunderstanding the regulations. It seems not entirely clear whether treated articles come under HSE biocides regulation or under the General Product Safety Regulations, but I would have thought that if the HSE did not authorise the use of the active chemicals then they should not be used in any consumer products. Perhaps this is, again, just a failure of enforcement, but maybe it is a lack of clarity in existing regulations.
Some silver compounds in that long spreadsheet list are still under review by the HSE, so perhaps that is what the socks contained. That led me to find out what effects are considered when a substance is reviewed under these regulations. There is a lot of paperwork, but I cannot see anything showing that the effects on the microbiome or the consequences of those effects are considered, presumably because the microbiome has not been a recognised part of our biology for long enough to make it into legislation. Of course, the HSE is not responsible for assessing environmental effects. Overall, this seems to indicate that the current regulations are inconsistent, out of date and possibly poorly enforced.
My impression as a consumer is that this is an area that needs looking into. Products appear to be on sale in Britain that raise concerns about their effects on individuals and the environment, and there are likely effects on our microbiomes and on the environment that it seems are not even being assessed. I ask the Minister to consider the whole matter of consumer antimicrobial products and what can be done to ensure that they are well regulated. Meanwhile, I am certainly not going to be using that spray in my office.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. Her experience in explaining science was much in evidence in her contribution today. I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on putting forward the Bill and securing today’s Second Reading. She remains unafraid to raise issues that many would prefer we did not speak about, even if there are threats to our own safety and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, reminded us that antimicrobial resistance is growing and a danger to us all.
Other noble Lords have already covered the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, noted, it is to limit the wide use of biocide-containing products, including soaps, mouthwashes and clothes. Why is this necessary? As other noble Lords have said, clinical specialists are saying loud and clear that these consumer products pose a threat to public health. This is not melodramatic. Over the last few years, we have had a number of Questions and debates in your Lordships’ House on the risk of AMR. We know that the NHS is very concerned about this, recommending that GPs think very carefully before prescribing antibiotics because of the risk of antimicrobial resistance.
The Bill does not address medicinal uses of antibiotics. It proposes to curtail the use of antimicrobial products that we have in our homes. We are bombarded with marketing and advertising for them every single day. As the briefing from the Centre for Long-Term Resilience says, using an antibacterial soap provides no advantage to the average consumer and use by the general public, who have no special medical need for them, can undermine the effectiveness of antibiotics when they are needed.
The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, about checking antimicrobial products using unapproved biocides was very helpful. I hope the Minister will ensure that is looked at. I am reminded that, during debates on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and an SI two years ago, I raised the issue of what has happened after Brexit and the UK Health and Safety Executive’s delays in getting the chemical database for products ready. I wonder whether this issue is being looked at in relation to the UK’s new database.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke of the importance of the UK working internationally on this matter. The World Health Organization has been warning of inappropriate overuse of biocides for over a decade. If we do not reduce our use of unnecessary antimicrobial products, we risk resistant bacteria causing severe disease that cannot be treated. Yesterday it was reported that Klebsiella pneumoniae, a dangerous bacterium responsible for pneumonia, has been discovered in Ukraine. Experts there are particularly alarmed because the bacterium is resistant to drugs. Scientists believe it poses a significant threat to public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with her medical expertise, spoke of research. Our doctors and scientists are warning us but the makers of consumer products are not listening, and they are the first who should listen.
Those living with immunosuppression understand the risks all too well. Those with my condition, who take regular immune suppressing medication, have a real concern about bacterial resistance to drugs. That tends to focus the mind. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to Bill Frankland. I was treated by him over 50 years ago. He was an excellent immunologist and, very unusually, he recognised my first autoimmune disease long before any of the other medics did. I am eternally grateful to him for that.
The description given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the use of silver in reusable menstrual products is very worrying. There is no general information available for girls and women on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, told us that other countries are beginning to take action on some of these biocides—so should the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the medical problems already faced by the general public as biocides enter our bodies and the long-term invisible health issues that we and future generations face. As a society, we appear to be walking blindfolded into a new world of invisible and long-term damage to our bodies.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, reminded us that we need to remember the consequences of any legislation on the law and the role of Parliament. His view is that the Bill is about being clear where responsibility lies—helpfully, with the manufacturers.
I think the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is the first attempt to limit the use of these antimicrobial products. I think she is starting an important debate that needs to be heard, especially by the companies manufacturing and advertising these products. Will the Minister at the very least have a round table to get the manufacturers together with the Health and Safety Executive to cover the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Freeman? We also need a wider public campaign because we all need to understand that, far from being helpful products, they could make the UK a less safe place.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing her Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships’ House. Consumer product regulation is a key topic in the world we live in, and we share her passion for protecting the environment from unnecessary harm. The noble Baroness set out in clear and concise detail why she feels the Bill is necessary. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do not wish in any way to detract from the noble Baroness’s good intentions, but it is only fair and reasonable that I am also clear on our behalf that we are unable to support the Bill.
As currently drafted, the Bill has an extremely broad application. Although the offence of selling cosmetic and personal care products containing biocides is well defined, Clauses 3 and 4 grant very wide powers over consumer products to the Secretary of State and the proposed biocidal consumer products advisory board. It appears that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the use of biocides understandably inform this drafting, but we feel that the broad and wide definition of these powers could lead to unintended overreach.
We are also concerned that the Bill takes too exacting an approach to regulation, and there are two strands to our concerns. First, the Bill sets the fine level for the sale and marketing of a cosmetic product containing biocides at “level 5”. By our understanding, that could result in an unlimited fine. It is conceivable that some reputable and legitimate firms may be discouraged from entering the cosmetic and personal care market with a technically unlimited level of liability. We would welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister—that is, if the Government are supportive of the Bill—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her closing speech, about what risk assessment impacts have been conducted on the impact to SME businesses. These firms are the lifeblood of the UK economy, and we really wish them to succeed for both job creation and tax receipts for the Exchequer. But, realistically, they will not have the same capacity as larger companies to ensure compliance with such an approach.
In addition to the unlimited company liability, the same offences would also apply to officers of a company. To be absolutely clear, we appreciate and understand that this approach is appropriate and right in the case of serious criminal activity and certain regulated sectors of the economy. That is not in doubt. However, we remain to be convinced that it is appropriate here. Should an offence be committed by a company, not only would that company be liable and fined but potentially so would the officers of the company. This is not the correct time to evaluate in detail how and whether those officers would realistically be liable in an industry that is already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations, trading standards services, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For good order, no crime should be acceptable. But, notwithstanding what I have referred to on the point of serious criminal activity and heavily regulated sectors, it should merit further discussion as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute both a business and an individual for the same offence in this situation.
Secondly, and continuing on the theme of overreaching regulation, the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to establish yet another regulatory board. Perhaps I might quote the Prime Minister:
“We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment. We will march through the institutions and make sure that every regulator in this country—especially our economic and competition regulators—take growth as seriously as this room does”.
That was also referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
I refer also to Thomas Brown, one of our excellent authors from the House of Lords Library, who refers in his research briefing on this Bill to
“the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety … the Health and Safety Executive … under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation … trading standards services … the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency … the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 … the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008”
and
“the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency joint research programme on AMR”.
With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and with what I have just highlighted as a backdrop, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we do not already have a deep portfolio of both regulators and regulations in this space, without the need to create yet another regulatory body.
To conclude, while we accept and respect the strength of the views and sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, towards the use of biocides in consumer products, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that we will not be supporting this Bill.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I was asked to respond to this Private Member’s Bill debate for the Government, I had absolutely no clue about biocides. I must admit that I have been a sucker for the 99.9% claim on every bit of packaging and every product in my flat in London. After hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, speak about the range of biocides that are in some of these products, I think that I shall go back this afternoon and look at every single product and see whether I should keep it in the flat.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the discussion that her Bill has generated, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness for the briefing, articles and various reports that she kindly sent to me. I must admit that I read Dr Fady’s briefing note last night.
The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that consumer products, including those containing biocides, remain safe. While the Government have reservations about the Bill, this should not be taken as dismissal of the concerns raised or the intent of the Bill. Rather, government believes that cosmetics regulation and biocidal products regulation, in addition to so many other regulations, provide long-standing regulatory frameworks that ensure that products containing biocides are safe. We believe that the Bill will create duplication in an area that is already well regulated and understood by industry, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
If products have a primary biocidal function, they will fall under the biocidal products regulation. These products must meet consumer safety and environmental protection requirements before being placed on the market in Great Britain. There is a very strict two-stage process that a biocidal product will go through: the active substance must be approved, which costs a lot of money, and the biocidal product in which the substance is used must be authorised.
As mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and many other noble Lords, there is existing legislation on biocides. The Biocidal Products Regulations broadly define biocides as substances intended to control harmful organisms. The legislation covers something like 22 product types in four main groups, including preservatives, disinfectants and pest control products. This definition is well understood and has been used by regulators, stakeholders and manufacturers for some time. This Bill introduces a separate and conflicting definition of a biocide, which applies only to substances with antimicrobial effects. This cuts across the established definition, undermining rather than strengthening the existing robust, evidence-based regulatory regime.
Furthermore, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents something like 85% of the industry in the UK in this area, does not support the Bill, precisely because the UK Cosmetics Regulation is already robust, evidence-led and fit for purpose. The provisions in the Bill would result in additional complexity for industry seeking to comply with regulations, as well as potential difficulties in enforcement, without any additional safety benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is absolutely right that we do not want to impose additional regulation on SMEs, which are really the drivers of growth in the country.
Biocides may also be found within cosmetics, usually as preservatives. The Cosmetics Regulation applies to products with a primary cosmetic purpose, as opposed to the Biocidal Products Regulation. It outlines a robust set of safety requirements for cosmetics. Annexe 5 lists which preservatives, including biocides, may be used in cosmetics, subject to any specified conditions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, we must keep pace with technology developments and evidence, which is precisely why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the Cosmetics Regulation to restrict or prohibit the use of substances in cosmetics, subject to conditions: for example, where there is sufficient scientific evidence indicating a potential risk to human health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned the HSE’s spreadsheet of biocides that are unauthorised. I will take that back to the department for clarification and ask why this is not enforced.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, and Ministers use expert advice from the Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety in Consumer Products to inform policy decisions and amendments to the Cosmetic Regulation, as indicated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Finlay and Lady Sugg. We do not want a new scientific advisory board. Having said that, the Government will listen to any scientific evidence and act appropriately.
The Government consider that the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board, proposed in the Bill, would duplicate the purpose and work of the well-established SAG-CS. We consider such a board to be unnecessary and think it could, in fact, create significant confusion. Other regulations, such as the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals Regulations, REACH for short, also apply to the use of chemicals to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. I will take back to the department the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the database and whether we have kept it up to date.
The Bill proposes that marketing, including implicit claims relating to the efficacy of a consumer product containing biocidal ingredients, can be made only if proven to the satisfaction of the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board. The Government agree that manufacturers should not be able to make misleading claims. Accordingly, in addition to the Advertising Standards Authority, both the cosmetics regulation and the biocidal products regulation contain provisions that prohibit products from making misleading claims regarding functions or safety.
As mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in addition to the existing regulatory framework, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which I introduced to the House on 4 September 2024, will ensure that the UK is better placed to address safety issues. The powers in that Bill will allow the Government to make regulations to reduce or mitigate the potential risks presented by products. This may include further regulating the use of chemicals in consumer products. As noble Lords know, the Bill completed Lords Committee stage in December and will, I hope, come back on Report some time in February.
Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, which this Bill aims to address, is a complex issue that requires action across all sectors, and the UK is fully committed to tackling the threat of AMR. The 2024-29 national action plan, launched by the previous Government, is the second five-year plan within the UK’s 20-year vision to control, contain and mitigate AMR by 2040. Tackling AMR resistance requires a holistic approach across government, not just targeting biocides in one area. The Government’s approach is evidence-led.
The national action plan provides a unified strategic approach. It was informed by consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise actions needed to tackle AMR. It also supports the co-ordinated action between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and across sectors, that is necessary to tackle AMR.
In summary, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for initiating the debate. I respect the intent behind the Bill. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex and serious issue requiring work across all sectors. I also agree that we need to be able to address the potential risks that biocides may pose in cosmetics and personal care products. However, we already have in place for these products robust regulatory frameworks that seek to ensure consumer safety and are well understood by industry. Consequently, the Bill may cloud and confuse the existing regime, which is very well established—a concern also voiced by the industry, as I mentioned earlier. The Government therefore do not support the Bill in its current form. However, officials would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness to discuss the safety of these products and any scientific evidence that may warrant consideration of changes to the current requirements, within the current legislative framework. In addition, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I will also ensure that officials organise roundtables with manufacturers.
In conclusion, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to support the Government’s Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will provide the powers needed to ensure we are better placed to address modern-day safety issues in order to protect consumers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely rich debate, both those who have brought their scientific expertise to the Chamber, and those who have concentrated hard while listening to that expertise. I doubt your Lordships’ House has seen a debate with more concentration of scientific evidence, but I posit that we need many more debates containing this level of science.
I am aware of all the people waiting for the next debate, but there are a couple of points really worth drawing out. The key question that has arisen is whether there is currently enough regulation, and here it is useful to triangulate three of the contributions from noble Lords.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised concerns about more regulation. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was here, because his contribution indicated that this potentially marks a shift from the Government drawing up lots of detailed rules, which will always be lagging behind, to putting the responsibility on manufacturers to say, “Don’t mess things up”. That surely should be where the responsibility lies, and it would take away a lot of the complexities that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to.
Here, it is useful to triangulate to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, which demonstrated clearly that the regulators are not in any way keeping up. The Minister suggested that there might be duplication and that the existing position is well regulated and understood. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, demonstrated otherwise and that the regulations are not fit for purpose. That also was also reflected in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, so triangulating those speeches is very useful.
I will deal briefly with some of the specific points made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising concerns about toxicity to human bodies, which is not adequately covered. I have not gone into that area because it is supposedly already regulated, although it clearly is not, as the noble Baroness indicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be pleased to know that I will be hosting two events in the next two months, with academics from the University of Exeter, on bacteriophages. Bacteriophages as an alternative to antibiotic use are certainly part of the story of how we are going to tackle the problem of AMR, but I would posit that they are unlikely to be a total solution.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Brinton, and others, raised the issue of period products. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, pointed out that silver damages the lactobacillus—the healthy bacteria. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. As the noble Baroness said, people cannot know what they are buying now. That cannot be right, and we should be able to tackle that right now through that Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether the level 5 unlimited fine is the right level. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that once we let the AMR genie out of the bottle, we cannot put it back. If a manufacturer that is a giant multinational company is responsible for letting loose a resistance gene that, essentially, gives rise to an AMR pandemic, a level 5 unlimited fine—which a court will of course consider with reference to the size of the company concerned—is the appropriate level.
I am aware of time, so I will offer some final thoughts. I really welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, saying that he was not dismissing the concerns that I brought forward today. I very much welcome the offer of further interaction, following up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of a round table, and I look forward to further such discussion in considering the Production Regulation and Metrology Bill.
Finally, I am really glad that the Minister is going to go home and check his cupboards. I would suggest that this provides evidence that future action is needed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, if I might briefly clarify, the unlimited fine I was referring to is obviously appropriate for large organisations, which have the ability to take that fine, but as was reiterated by the Minister, it is the SMEs we want to help. For them, an unlimited fine could make the difference between entering the market and not, which is why we need to take a measured approach.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next business, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time for speeches in this debate is four minutes. If your Lordships can respect that, they will enable colleagues speaking later to leave the House at a reasonable time.
Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, care leavers under the age of 25 who are claiming universal credit receive the same rate as their peers, who are far more likely to be able to access support from their parents. That means that young people under 25 receive £81.77 less in universal credit per month compared to those over 25—a 21% reduction. This Bill would complement proposals by providing increased financial support for care leavers currently living on the lowest incomes. It would mean that care leavers claiming universal credit would see their monthly payment increase to a total of £393.45. That monthly figure is not dissimilar to the daily allowance that Members of your Lordships’ House can claim; it is not a huge sum to live on.
I thank those who have made time to participate in this debate on a Friday—not least the Minister and shadow Minister, with whom we had constructive conversations in advance—and the group of care-experienced young people, facilitated by the charity Become, who were very generous with their time and shared some extremely perceptive insights with me and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby about the differences that this policy change would make to their lives. They have agreed that we can name them in our speeches today.
There are over 92,000 care leavers in England under the age of 25. This cohort of young adults is in particular need of further support, including through the social security system. This Bill would equalise the standard allowance for universal credit for care leavers under the age of 25, but that is just one of a number of steps that could be made to ensure that young care leavers receive the support they need to flourish. I hope that, in this debate, there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to explore those, and perhaps other, steps and for us to commit ourselves to supporting young adults leaving care.
I will set out the problem. Many of the young people we talked to last week spoke about the additional support that they would have benefited from, particularly leading up to the age of 18. Research shows over and again that being in care is one of the key adverse childhood experiences that can exacerbate problems in later life. You often go into care because of other things that are on that list of key adverse childhood experiences. No matter how well the state has performed its role as a corporate parent in those formative years—whether through foster parents or a children’s home—young care leavers are still likely to have had significant adverse experiences, and so they merit a higher level of support as they enter those early years of adulthood.
At the same time, we know—many of us have personal experience of this—that financial dependence on older relatives continues longer into adulthood than in previous decades. While around half of 24 year-olds still live with their parents, less than one-fifth of all care leavers in that 19 to 21 age group live with a parent, relative or foster carer. To put it bluntly, most young care leavers do not have the financial cushion of the “bank of mum and dad” or any equivalent. Some foster carers manage to provide an important bridging facility through the Staying Put and Staying Close schemes, but for a very large number of young care leavers there is no family home to go back to. The state has been their family, so it should accept some ongoing responsibility, which is what I am trying to achieve through this Bill.
Moreover, young care leavers are significantly more likely not to be in education, employment or training compared to the general population. In fact, they are three times more likely: 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are what we call NEETs, compared with an estimated 13% of all young people in that age range. That is almost two in every five, compared with a figure of about one in eight.
The benefits system does not currently recognise the specific circumstances that have led a young person to be taken into care or recognise their unique issues that they will face throughout their life. It is vital, for example, that staff at job centres can identify care leavers and are equipped to respond to their particular needs. We have also learned from the conversations we have had that care leavers are three times more likely to be sanctioned in the benefit system than their peers. One young woman, Louise, explained that it was not a simple process. She had to work through pages and pages of information; there was no proper guide and no help if she missed an appointment because of morning sickness during her pregnancy, and job coaches who she was assigned to did not know what a care leaver was.
It is now almost a decade since the Children’s Society produced its research on sanctions for care leavers. Will the Department for Work and Pensions look into whether under-25s who present as care leavers are disproportionately affected by benefit sanctions? Some young care leavers, as a result of sanctions combined with the lower rate, are left with something closer to £200 a month—£50 a week. That cannot be enough to live on. Equalising universal credit is one small thing the state could do to perhaps exercise its extended parental role and put those young care leavers on a path that is a bit closer to that of their peers. The Bill is a way of achieving that.
There was universal agreement among the care leavers who met us last week that the under-25 rate is not sufficient to meet their needs. Many are struggling to pay bills. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have shown that that reduced rate means that young people are left with about half of what is needed to afford essentials such as food, water and clothing, even though under-25s are the age group at greatest risk of experiencing destitution. Chereece, who met us, noted that care leavers are much more likely to be living independently from a younger age. After gas, electric bills, TV licence and so on, she had about £60 per month—for food. As a result, she was visiting food banks to survive, could not meet up with friends and could barely even travel. Again, when you do not have family behind you, to be able to travel to meet up and maintain such relationships as you have been able to form is really important.
Some local authorities help: there is a discretionary rule that they can exempt care leavers from council tax in those early years, and the majority of local authorities do that. But, of course, they may move to a different authority. We know that many care-experienced young people are in care homes in the poorest parts of the country; if they are going to get a job—and we want them to get jobs—they have to move to somewhere where it is easier to find work. However, the local authority in their new setting is much less likely to grant them exemption from council tax than where they were officially in care. So many whom we spoke to noted that if they just had the extra 21%—the over-25 rate of universal credit—it would have given them stability, avoided debt, and helped with their mental health.
We are not creating a new principle with the Bill. The local housing allowance system already recognises that care leavers are a special case, and they get the one-bedroom rate rather than the lower shared accommodation rate. So the principle that we could treat care leavers as a special case is already there in law; the Bill simply wants to extend it to the universal credit part of the welfare system.
How much will it cost? Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have estimated that it would cost just under £25 million per year if we considered all care leavers under the age of 25 who are not in employment, education or training. It could be even less than that, because some will be in other households where others are earning. This small investment—it is small in national terms—could have significant human and financial benefits, reducing the risk of poverty, mental ill-health, homelessness and debt. Will the Department for Work and Pensions look at the data it holds on care leavers to assess what the cost would be of raising the standard allowance for this cohort? We are going with the charity figures because those are the only figures that we have.
I note a number of measures contained within the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, currently making its way through the Commons, that would support young care leavers. Perhaps that would be another way of bringing about this change. I would welcome any conversations with noble Lords about introducing such changes when that Bill makes its way to your Lordships’ House.
In conclusion, with targeted support through the social security system as they take their first steps into adulthood, young care leavers would have a basis from which to afford essential goods, maintain contact with their support networks and enter the world of work.
The moral case for making the change is strong. These are young people for whom the state has effectively been the corporate parent, and as the corporate parent the state can support them better into adulthood, in the same way that parents—including me, I declare an interest—have done for our own children, well into adulthood.
I look forward to hearing the speeches of other noble Lords today, not least from those who were in the care system or who have experienced being fostered, formally or informally, as children themselves, and to working with Peers across this House to facilitate this important change. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we owe a debt to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing this Bill and highlighting a significant problem.
It has been said today that many people come through the care system and move on to a full, successful life, but—and it is a big but—it is tougher for people who come out of the care system, and they deserve the support which is suggested by this Bill. I thank the charitable organisations for the briefings they have provided, which highlight the financial challenges faced by care leavers and certainly their entitlement to this additional support.
As the right reverend Prelate said, each year, 13,000 young people leave care in the UK, transitioning to independence far earlier than young people more generally, most of whom continue to receive some sort of support from their parents. Typically, and now increasingly, young people are living with their parents and retaining that support, unlike people from care backgrounds. Of course, the picture is mixed. Many foster parents keep supporting children even after the age of 18, but it is still more difficult for care leavers, and the system should recognise this.
As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that the current rate of universal credit provides only about half of the level of what is required for food, shelter and clothing; the justification for paying them a lower rate of universal credit just is not there. The financial penalty disproportionately impacts care leavers, many of whom, because of the greater struggles they face, depend entirely on universal credit due to the problems they have had with education and employment opportunities. As has been mentioned, the statistics from 2024 show that around two-fifths of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 13% of children more generally. Care leavers themselves have made clear how they struggle and what a significant difference this measure would make.
I argue that although we have a strong case in terms of costs and savings, I see this as a moral issue. We owe these young people the best possible start in life. They are entrusted to our care, and this Bill would give them the resources they need to meet our obligation towards them.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support this important Bill and commend the right reverend Prelate for bringing forward this measure with such clarity and compassion.
As a society, we have a duty to ensure that young care leavers are given every opportunity to thrive, reach their full potential and contribute to their communities. Yet despite some positive steps in recent years, we know that care-experienced young people continue to face significant barriers. Many of these barriers are financial, and they are amplified by the unique circumstances of their lives.
Young people leaving care often find themselves living independently, without the safety net of family support that so many others rely on well into their 20s. The struggles they face are basic needs: paying for food, utilities and other essentials, while trying to take their first steps into adulthood. These challenges are compounded by the rising cost of living today. The Bill offers a simple but effective remedy. By equalising the standard allowance of universal credit, we can help ensure that care leavers aged 18 to 25 have access to the financial resources they need to build stable and independent lives. For a young person, that extra £81.77 per month can make the difference between surviving and thriving.
I have seen the transformative impact that support and guidance can have on the lives of care-experienced young people. Organisations such as First Star Scholars UK—I declare an interest as patron—are leading the way in this regard. First Star’s four-year programme for young people in care has achieved remarkable results, with its scholars now reaching national averages of GCSE attainment and university placements. Through life-skills programmes such as those offered by First Star Scholars, care-experienced young people are not only gaining qualifications but learning essential tools for independence, such as financial literacy.
These skills are vital in enabling care leavers to navigate adulthood with confidence, ambition and resilience, with a strong foundation to succeed, but financial stability is critical to that success. Without adequate support, care leavers face significantly poorer outcomes, including homelessness, unemployment and imprisonment. It is estimated that failing to invest in care leavers costs the taxpayer an additional £1 million per individual over their lifetime. Surely providing the financial support and programmes they need to thrive is both a moral and economic necessity.
The Bill represents a step forward towards fairness, dignity and opportunity for young care leavers. It is not just about financial support; it is about saying to these young people, “You matter. We believe in you, and we are committed to your success”. I urge the Government to support the Bill and ensure that care leavers, who have already faced so many challenges in their young lives, are given the chance to stand on an equal footing with their peers. We have the opportunity to help care-experienced young people realise their full potential and build a future they can be proud of.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise that your Lordships’ House has already heard rather a lot from me today, given that I had the previous Private Member’s Bill, but I wanted to make one particular point here, which is why I put my name down on the list. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward this humane, constructive and practical Bill, which I have no doubt at all would end up saving the Government money—not that that should be the main point, but it is worth highlighting. I also thank him for introducing it so clearly.
The chief comparative point I want to make is this. In Wales, a trial of something much more radical and much larger than this proposal is continuing. It is a trial of universal basic income for care leavers that has seen a total of 635 young people receive payments after tax of £1,280 a month for two years. This trial will continue until May 2025, and, unfortunately, anyone leaving care after that point will not be eligible for it. There will then be continuous careful academic study and reports on its impact.
I note that the Minister for Social Justice in Wales has said that there has already been fantastic feedback from participants. I was at a meeting where we heard some direct testimony from some of the care leavers who have benefited from this programme. One story that will stick with me is of a couple of care leavers who chose to leave their minimum wage jobs to take up apprenticeships so that they could establish themselves in their lives, establish a career and get training and education, which the current system did not allow them to do. It was only because they were able to access this trial that they could do that. While the proposal before us would not necessarily entirely achieve that aim, it kind of demonstrates the ways in which it could open up people’s horizons and possibilities.
It is also worth pointing out some recent global research, which shows how universal basic income can substantially improve the mental health of young people generally—but, obviously, of care leavers in particular. Potentially, that would mean enormous savings in costs for the NHS.
I will briefly raise a couple of other points. I note a study from Become, the national charity for children in care and young care leavers, which found that more than 9% of care leavers aged 18 to 25 were statutorily assessed as being homeless or facing homelessness in the past year. That is 10 times the rate of non-care-experienced children, and that is a huge failure. You emerge from the experiences of care and then they find yourself statutorily homeless—what a difficult position that is. Again, the right reverend Prelate’s Bill would not solve all of that, but it would be a step towards it.
There is one other point on which the Minister may wish to write. I note that Coram Voice, after a freedom of information request to 153 local authorities in England, found that care leavers were receiving vastly different levels of support. There is supposed to be a setting up home allowance of £3,000, but some councils are paying only £1,500. Can the Minister tell me what is happening to make sure that all care leavers are at least getting the setting up allowance that they obviously greatly need?
Finally, with reference to my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I note a call from the LGA last year suggesting that care leavers should be exempt from council tax and prescription charges, as well as NHS dental charges and optician costs, to help them further, as the right reverend Prelate’s Bill does. Could the Minister respond to any of that?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for securing this debate and for the passion that he put into his opening speech, which set out the landscape very starkly.
Striking out into the world on your own for the first time is exciting and daunting for anyone: the opportunity to carve your own path, with new-found independence, is a major step. On the other hand, learning to budget and keep on top of bills, remembering to put a wash on in time so that you are ready for work or college and managing to keep the fridge stocked, let alone keeping yourself healthy, all combine to form a huge learning curve for any young person. It is even more difficult for those without supportive families to fall back on, or for those who cannot stay at home for other reasons.
In most cases, local authorities act as corporate parents for care leavers, giving them the practical, social and emotional support that any good parent would give their child—from help to find the right accommodation to guiding them through job applications and interviews to making sure that they know where to turn if they are having trouble. However, local authorities cannot always meet the needs of young people in care, and that highlights the vital role of charities such as Barnardo’s, Become and the Children’s Society, which have combined to provide noble Lords with an excellent briefing for today’s debate.
In the offer to young people in care, I believe that the question to be asked should always be, “Would this be appropriate for my child?” Can we honestly say that decisions are always made in their best interests? If we cannot, as a society we are failing some of our most vulnerable people—people who need and deserve support to build their lives.
I do not intend to say much about universal credit. In fact, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Sherlock, herself an ordained priest in the Church of England and now the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions. She is the only person I have come across—and I have listened to quite a bit on this—who can explain universal credit in a manner that is understandable.
I understand the importance that universal credit has for care leavers. They are often expected to leave care before they are ready, and without the support they need to make a positive start to adulthood. According to Become, around 13,000 young people leave the care system in England each year and, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is estimated that there were around 90,000 care leavers aged 17 to 25 in England last year.
Young people have described leaving the care system as a cliff edge—being forced to leave home abruptly at 18, sometimes even younger, when crucial support, care and relationships fall away and they are expected to become independent overnight. I return to the question that I posed earlier and that every parent should ask: “Would this be appropriate for my child?” Of course, it is not appropriate for any child, and universal credit itself cannot solve the problems facing young people leaving care.
But what universal credit could do is better provide for them by allowing all care leavers from the age of 18 to receive the full standard allowance entitlement for those aged 25 or over. To deny that is to suggest that the essentials for living are somehow available more cheaply to those under the age of 25. That is clearly not the case. Again as the right reverend Prelate outlined, there are precedents in law for treating care leavers as a special case, and I believe this should be added to that. Care-experienced young people generally have more financial responsibilities than their non-care-experienced peers from a younger age, and without the same safety net to fall back on. So I urge my noble friend the Minister to give an undertaking that this problem will be addressed, to give young care leavers a better chance of successfully making their way in life—which, as I said, is something that they both need and deserve.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I congratulate my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester on bringing this Private Member’s Bill. I declare my interest as chair of the Children’s Society—a charity rooted in the Church of England and a key partner in the Church’s work to support care-experienced children and young people. I therefore welcome this Bill for the difference that it would make to care leavers.
As mentioned, last week we were privileged to hear directly from care leavers. I pay tribute to their resilience and I know that they are listening closely today. Their testimony reinforces my support for the Bill.
Three recurring themes emerge from our conversation: vulnerability, inconsistency and disempowerment. First, too many young people are made profoundly vulnerable as they leave care without a sufficient safety net around them. A recent survey by the National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum found that 82% of care leavers struggled to afford food some or all the time.
We have heard how much more vulnerable care leavers are to the risk of homelessness. Our conversation evidenced how, without the familial networks on which others may rely, care leavers often do not have access to support while applying for universal credit. On leaving the children’s home where she had lived until turning 17, Helen shared with us that she did not start claiming universal credit for two years, because she was not aware that she was eligible. Leo was thrown into the deep end, as he described, without access to a professional adviser. He had to rely on the support staff at his hostel to learn about how to submit his claim.
Another theme is inconsistency. We have heard the difference experienced by care leavers following the Children’s Society’s Fighting for a Fairer Start campaign, which means that 80% of local authorities across England have now committed to exempt care leavers from council tax until they are 25. Aaliyah reported to us the traumatising experience of being in council tax arrears because she was in one of those areas that did not exempt care leavers. So I echo the request already made to the Minister to explore with colleagues in MHCLG whether exemption from council tax and other matters could become a universal entitlement for care leavers under the age of 25.
Finally, the current system disempowers care leavers. Rona now works in this sector. As a care leaver herself, she observes a contrast between the way in which some people engage with her, as a professional, and the claimant she is supporting. Young care leavers experience all too often an ill-informed disregard, distrust and hostility in these interactions. Last year, in a policy paper the Government committed to creating
“a culture change in which we realise our shared ambition to support children in care and care leavers”.
This must start with taking them seriously, giving due regard to their experience and perspective. I, too, welcome the introduction of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which aims to increase financial support for care leavers on the lowest incomes; I look forward to engaging closely with noble friends in this Chamber.
Navigating young adulthood is challenging enough. It is simply unacceptable to allow some of the most vulnerable young adults in our country to continue to face undue and unnecessary financial pressures just at the time when they are striving to build healthy, positive and productive lives. That is why I support this Bill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I must compliment the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on bringing this Bill forward and eloquently supporting it in his opening speech.
I listened to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who was right to stress the point about carers leaving for adulthood and the need for financial stability, which is not that clear. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, rightly spoke about the moral issue. We tend to deal in pounds and pence all the time, but there are morals as well; we ought to be aware of our moral responsibilities to those people in society who are less fortunate.
We on these Benches clearly support this Private Member’s Bill but, like so many Bills, it does not go far enough. That is easy to say, but we maybe start with small things and go on to more. Under-25s receive £81.77 less per month in universal credit, because the assumption is that they can call on support from family members, but do they in fact receive that support? Are they actually required to pay their very reduced universal credit into the family coffers? There are responsibilities for everybody, and the people leaving care have that problem.
What are we actually concerned about? We are concerned about people slipping through the holes in society. As has been said, this is a real moral issue. Again, I stress that we should extend the full rate of universal credit to under-25s from care—I would welcome this—but they should not receive less than the full rate anyway because people have costs. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, the idea is to give people both financial stability and the fact that they are paying for themselves.
There will, of course, be a cost to the public purse for Ministers, but so many of these assumed costs to the public purse are not the whole story. We saw this with the winter fuel allowance: here was a wonderful way to cut down benefits, via the winter fuel allowance, but a Government Minister said very clearly that they welcomed the big increase in people claiming supplementary benefits, which meant that they could then claim the winter fuel allowance, and therefore there was no economy of any size, if at all. Here, by depriving these young people of a small sum of money—and it is a small sum—we are not behaving in a moral manner.
I was rather taken by comments I read such as, “I would have had more stability and not been in debt if my mental health would have been better”, and “It would mean that care leavers may have food on the table and they are more likely to likely to be fed and more likely to be able to have some heating on in this freezing weather”. It could go towards food, and care leavers could be more motivated to go to college or even see a friend”.
Many care leavers have said they were resorting to borrowing money to enable them to meet essential costs. As most care leavers have limited credit histories and many are either out of work or in very low paid jobs, access to lower-cost credit is very limited. Many therefore find themselves resorting to high-cost lenders, often getting trapped into a debt cycle that is difficult to escape. This brings us back to the moral issue of not treating people as people whom we respect.
Support for the Bill should be very strong in your Lordships’ House. It is, as with so many Private Members’ Bills, a Bill of two pages. We do not have a lot of amendments, subsections, schedules and the like. In fact, there is very little in the Bill—it just says, basically, this is a moral issue and we should deal with it. That is how we should take it, and I hope the Government will make time for the Bill and do an impact study on how much would be saved and how much it would cost to be more expansive with universal credit for all youngsters under the age of 25. From these Benches, we support the Bill and hope that as it progresses it might cover wider areas of interest.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, let me thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for successfully bringing the important issue of universal credit allowances for care leavers before your Lordships’ House. Children who are in care have had an extremely challenging start in life, and it is the responsibility of those who have been more fortunate to do everything we can to ease that transition for care leavers from care to living independent, enriching and successful lives.
For many individuals, universal credit plays a key role in their transition out of the care system. To that end, care leavers over the age of 18 are already able to claim benefits on the same basis as other adults of that age. Those who are 16 or 17 years old and leave care cannot generally claim benefits, as the local authority remains responsible for meeting their needs for maintenance, accommodation and support, unless they are responsible for a child or have a limited capability for work, but awards will not include an amount to cover rent.
There are other measures in place to support care leavers, such as staying-put arrangements, which help former foster children to continue living in their foster homes as boarders and lodgers. They may also be eligible to claim housing costs for setting up home allowance, which is a grant local authorities can give to care leavers to help them get their new homes up and running, as well as education bursaries for those completing in full-time and higher education. Some local authorities provide financial gifts and bill exemptions.
As I flagged earlier, doing everything that we can for care leavers should be the top priority—that is not in question—but there appear to already be a number of financial assistance provisions in place. It merits further discussion of whether additional monetary assistance by itself would achieve the goal that all noble Lords share of improving outcomes for care leavers.
It is not a surprising statistic, but it is none the less hugely regrettable that care leavers are more likely to be at risk of poor educational outcomes, unemployment, homelessness, drug and alcohol dependency, offending and mental health issues. These are the key issues that require a laser focus. If we are able to address them with a holistic approach, many other issues will disappear. We might consider improving mental health support for care leavers or working with charities to give children in care and care leavers positive role models to emulate.
Having a roof over your head is the foundation stone of a stable environment. Additional assistance in finding a home may be particularly beneficial. To that end, I ask the Minister to what extent the household support allowance is supporting care leavers. We would also be particularly keen to see more assistance given to care leavers in finding long-term stable employment, which would strengthen the aim to deliver on our commitment to helping them by providing a consistent and reliable income stream from which they could make plans for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, very rightly mentioned qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, mentioned training. What training are the Government providing to work coaches at jobcentres to give specialist employment support to care leavers? What steps is the department taking to recruit additional work coaches in order to specifically help care leavers? Would the Government consider committing to allowing care leavers to see the same work coach every time they engage with employment support services? Consistency of both approach and relationship can make a huge difference in the positive progress of an individual as they move forward on their journey into adult life.
There is also the question of regional disparity. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned different payouts from different councils. Is the Minister aware of outcomes for care leavers differing across regions? If that is the case, what action will the Government take to provide additional support to local authorities in regions, which could improve their outcomes?
Children in care and care leavers are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is our collective responsibility to do more to reduce this vulnerability. Additional financial assistance is one potential way of improving outcomes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is suggesting, but other measures may be necessary.
I turn now to the wording of the Bill and the fact that parliamentary oversight is essential. It is a concern for His Majesty’s Official Opposition that statutory instruments made under powers bestowed on the Secretary of State by the Bill will not automatically be scrutinised by this House. Given the likely potential cost of implementing the provisions in the Bill, an assessment must first be conducted to ascertain the cost to the taxpayer, particularly in light of the fact that there may well be more efficient and effective ways to deliver positive outcomes to support care leavers. It is indeed possible, as mentioned by many noble Lords, that there would be positive cost benefits, such as less homelessness and less dependence on local services, but until such an assessment has actually been made, we simply do not know.
In conclusion, there are measures in place to support care leavers as they take their first steps into the world, which we hope will lead to them becoming thriving, independent adults. However, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester correctly identifies in this Bill, there is always more that can be done. We must consider all options, as a nuanced approach may prove more beneficial for care leavers, with things such as tailored work coaches, mental health support and mentors, to name but a few.
Please allow me to end by highlighting to all noble Lords that many children in care and care leavers deserve our support and protection from those who would do them harm. I am absolutely sure that every speaker in this debate wants that 100%. When later this year we see the results of the urgent national review, announced yesterday, into the scale of grooming gangs, we very much hope that positive action will be taken to stop this happening once and for all.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing the Bill, for his eloquent advocacy and for taking the time for the briefing we had. I am sure that all noble Lords pass our best wishes to my noble friend Lady Sherlock for a speedy return to her rightful place on this Bench.
I will be open and honest in saying that this subject is very close to my heart. Before I became leader of Leeds City Council, I was the executive member for children’s services on Leeds City Council and moved an inherited inadequate service to one with outstanding provision. My experience in local government, across the piece at the LGA, has stood me in good stead to have some understanding and has left me with the firm conviction that everyone in all our communities has a responsibility and a role to play in addressing the challenges facing care leavers. We have heard about many of these from Members across the House, and I thank everyone for their contributions. Every partner organisation and every sector, whether it is public agencies or the private sector, have a contribution to make. We have heard some brilliant examples of where work is being done to address the challenges.
What we have heard today, and what we all know, is that the adverse experiences faced by many care leavers can have a significant impact on their ability to transition into independent living. Without meaningful support, many struggle with financial, emotional and health challenges, and are often left lonely and isolated, without support from family—the mental health issues that have been brought up by noble Lords today.
On the long-term impact, we have had quite a good discussion about the increased number of NEETs. I suggest that there is another category that we need to take account of: the not knowns, the ones for whom we do not have any data. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised issues around that.
To respond to the comments from my noble friend Lord Watson, again, it is about how we draw everyone’s experience together to make sure that we have a holistic package to support care leavers into independent living. I note the comment that was so well made by my noble friend Lord Davies about the financial stress that we are talking about.
We must emphasise in this debate that the Government offer a range of services and support for care leavers. First and foremost, of course, is ensuring that the benefit system meets their specific needs. Because care leavers are less likely to receive family support for accommodation, they can receive the higher local housing allowance one-bedroom rate of either housing benefit or universal credit, up to the age of 25. We provide staying-put arrangements whereby care leavers aged 18 to 21 who remain with former foster carers may be eligible for means-tested benefits.
We need to take into account that, in addition to the exemption from the shared accommodation rate, discretionary housing payments, administered by local authorities, can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit. Government guidance includes care leavers under 35 on the list of priority groups for that support.
I think we are all looking forward to the discussions on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will make the Staying Close programme a national offer to applicable children up to the age of 25. Care leavers under 25 will also be exempt from rules that require a connection to a local area before accessing social housing. I am pleased to say that additional funding has been given to local authorities to provide extra support to care leavers at the highest risk of rough sleeping.
Care leavers receive priority access to universal credit alternative payment arrangements, offering greater flexibility for those who need it. To support the transition to the adult welfare system, care leavers’ single points of contact work with the local authority leaving care teams, and care leavers can prepare their universal credit application before they turn 18.
We know that the best way to support care leavers into independent living is through work, which is why the DWP works across and beyond government to offer bespoke educational and employment support. The Second Chance Learning scheme ensures that benefit support is available to care leavers aged 18 to 21 who want to catch up on missed education. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for her comments and the work that she is involved in with the first STAR Scholars.
We work to ensure that care leavers get the most out of the DWP’s youth offer, which includes tailored work coach support for those aged 16 to 24. Of course, the Government must lead by example, which is why it is so important that different departments are offering career opportunities to care leavers through schemes such as the Civil Service care leaver internship. I commend organisations such as the NHS and private companies that have outstanding practice in this area.
More widely, the Government have improved support for those in care so that they get the start in life they deserve and are prepared for adulthood. In addition, our focus has to be on early support and early intervention, which means intervening at the earliest possible moment when problems within families start to emerge. We want to move to a position where we can enable children to safely remain with their families, kinship carers or fostering families. We are putting in work to try to attract more foster carers to the system. We are also looking at fixing the care market so that it puts the needs of children first.
In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, statutory guidance requires local authorities to work with children in care aged 16 and 17 to develop a pathway plan setting out what support will be provided when they leave care. This includes how they will support the young person to develop their financial capability and money management skills. It is vital that care leavers, and their supporters, understand the full extent of the support available to them. This is the issue about consistency across the piece. We are working with partners in local authorities and elsewhere to raise awareness, including through factsheets to signpost how and where to access support. We know that this needs to be extensive, inclusive and continually updated.
In response to the consistency points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, there have been concerns about patchy support across local authorities. There are obligations on local authorities to meet the standards specified in the Children Act. Jobcentres work with local authority leaving care teams to support care leavers who need to claim benefits so that they can transition to jobcentre support and find employment. Gathering more effective data is, of course, a prerequisite to all of this work.
Councils already have powers to provide council tax discounts, including for care leavers. It is for councils themselves to determine whether a discount is appropriate. I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby about this.
The DWP has updated guidance and introduced additional support to help care leavers navigate the benefits system. There is a report on these issues from the Children’s Society that goes back a number of years, and I recognise there is a frustration here. There is a requirement, however, that before imposing sanctions, work coaches must speak to a care leaver’s single point of contact, who works with the local authority personal advisor to consider relevant information. We believe this has led to improvements, but reliable data is not yet available. Of course, we would welcome any further evidence of this from partners and noble Lords so that we can get a much more up-to-date picture.
Universal credit is an important part of the support available to care leavers on low incomes, as referenced by so many of the contributions today. My noble friend Lord Davies raised the specific issue of adequacy of universal credit. The fair repayment rate, to be introduced from April, will reduce the overall cap on universal credit deductions from 25% to 15%. This will make a contribution, but it does not address the wider points. We need to ensure that we get continual feedback and evidence on these issues.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester correctly identified the key point in the Bill that under-25s are paid slightly lower rates than the universal credit standard. Indeed, there are reasons why the standard allowance differs according to age. Younger workers typically receive lower wages, with the lower rates of standard allowance maintaining the incentive to find and progress in work. As we have heard, younger people are also generally more likely to live in some someone else’s household, with living costs decreasing significantly for under-25s. Of course—this is the point—care leavers are much less likely to live in someone else’s household.
However, as I have noted, the Government offer support and easements to help care leavers meet their additional needs. The point I need to make again is that it is not possible to make a reliable assessment at this point because data coverage on care leavers is still limited. This is not about cutting costs, however. We want to make sure that we do everything in our power to enable care leavers to move into long-term employment as we believe this is the is the best way to support their transition to independent living.
More generally, support for accommodation and other living costs is available to those most in need. For example, the Government have provided £742 million to extend the household support fund in England until 31 March 2026. Local authorities can also use discretionary housing payments to provide further assistance.
For these reasons, the Government do not believe the Bill is the best way to deliver all the support that we believe care leavers deserve. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government have committed to reviewing universal credit to ensure it tackles poverty and makes work pay, and we commit to listening carefully to all perspectives and to welcoming input from across the House, as has been expressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has requested that this be fed in; I hope he will come forward to feed his comments into the overall review that is being undertaken. It is critical that we get the widest possible background to support this review. Of course, we will continue to improve the support available to care leavers.
On future work, the youth guarantee announced in the Get Britain Working White Paper will be available to young people aged 18 to 21 in England, including care leavers, to ensure they can more easily access quality training opportunities and apprenticeships or help to find work. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as I have referenced, will introduce a staying close duty, requiring local authorities to support care leavers to find accommodation and support services, and to publish plans for facilitating their transition into independent living.
This work is a cross-government priority. Indeed, a care leaver ministerial board, comprising Ministers from 12 government departments and chaired by the Education Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, has now been established to identify what more can be done. As well as the voices of noble Lords, we have to make sure that we hear the voices of care leavers and young people generally and learn from those with lived experience to ensure that we are not in this Building passing judgment, when it is clear from the testimonies that we have heard today that it is so important that their experience is front and centre of any changes that we take forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referenced the Wales universal basic income. I acknowledge that comment; DWP officials are working closely with Welsh local authorities to ensure that transition can take place smoothly.
On the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in exceptional circumstances 16 and 17 year-olds may claim universal credit in their own right, but there is no direct entitlement to universal credit for children under the age of 17. I do not have time to go into the detail, but I am happy to pick up on that at another point.
Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing this matter to the House. I look forward very much to the continuing discussions. The Government share his commitment to supporting care leavers. We will continue to build on existing support to ensure that care leavers, and indeed all young people, receive the support that they need to live securely and independently into adulthood. I have not had time specifically to refer to the comments about mental health issues, but we know how significant that is—and I reference the work ongoing in this area.
One thing that we know in this area of work is that we all need a relentless focus. We know that too many of our vulnerable young people have been let down in the past. I emphasise that we remain committed to working closely with care leavers and those who support them to bring about the transformation that we need in the way that support is given to them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon, and thank them for the concern for care leavers that has come from all sides of this House.
Particularly in the past few minutes, we have heard that we do not have adequate data. Of course, waiting for data can be an excuse, so can we commit to collecting the data that we need so that we can have an informed debate—particularly as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill goes forward? That may be a place where we can continue some of these conversations beyond the scope of this Bill. We have heard also that, while lots of statutory guidance exists, its application, in the Minister’s own words, is at best patchy. The advantage of tackling this matter through universal credit is that it takes away the postcode lottery.
I know that many noble Lords are here for the next debate, so I shall be brief. In my years with the Church Commissioners, I discovered that, when you are prepared to look at things in the long term, the moral and financial cases often point in the same direction. We have heard many noble Lords speak in this debate about the moral and financial case. If we improved universal credit rates for young care leavers, we would in the long term save money. I know that I do not have to be re-elected every five years and I can take a long-term view—but please can we recognise that, if we take a moral and financial case, they can both point in the same direction, particularly when we look long term?
Today sees the retirement of the reverend canon Dr Malcolm Brown, who has led the Church of England’s public affairs work nationally for something like 18 years. I want to thank him for his support of me and my friends on these Benches over so many years. I am glad to be able to put that on the record of your Lordships’ House. I also echo the Minister in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who is just as gifted in the pulpit as she is in explaining universal credit, a speedy recovery.
I finish on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. He said, “Would this be appropriate for my child?” With that question echoing in my heart, I beg to move.
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1.
It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second.
At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was:
“I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.]
I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures.
Clause 1(1) provides that:
“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”.
That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to
“enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”.
Nothing in that clause suggests that there is any control on the number of people who may be admitted.
The term “family members” is specifically defined in Clause (1)(5)(a), which provides that it includes a person’s
“parent …. spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner … child, including adopted child, who is either … under the age of 18 or … over the age of 18, but dependent on the person… sibling, including adoptive sibling”.
Clause (1)(5(b) states that it includes:
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child … the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person … any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted protection status”,
and
“such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
This is possibly the most expansive definition of “additional family member” that could be conceived.
My amendments are targeted to address that issue in the Bill. The reason for this is that, clearly, the admission of refugees’ additional family members to this country places a strain on domestic limited resources, including accommodation, financial support, education facilities and medical facilities. As the House of Lords Library briefing noted, since 2015, some 64,000 additional family members have been admitted under the present scheme. I suggest that, under these proposals, that number would be multiplied very many times.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in group 1 and to support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I extend my apologies at the outset to your Lordships’ House for the fact that I was not able to be here on 18 October for Second Reading due to a long-standing family engagement.
Given that I have tabled a significant number of amendments, I think it would be helpful to explain why my noble friends and I are seeking to amend the Bill. First, I put on record my appreciation of the commitment and tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to get this measure on to the statute book on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding that, this is a very poorly drafted and ill thought through Bill, which is why 32 amendments have been tabled to it in Committee. It gives rise to wide-ranging ramifications in terms of public finances, the delivery of public services and community cohesion. It is a de facto legislative open door to unlimited immigration—let us be honest about that. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to reject that analysis, I am more than happy to give way.
It is also inherently unfair on those seeking regular routes to indefinitely remain and to citizenship. Finally, more generally, I believe it is predicated on a mischaracterisation and a misunderstanding of whether the UK has indeed discharged its historic and current proper humanitarian and compassionate international duties to refugees. I think there is significant evidence that it has.
So, it is a bad Bill, but even now, at this late stage, I believe it can be improved. It is as well to say that the UK has a long and proud record of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, some of whom came to my former constituency, Peterborough. Via bespoke humanitarian routes the UK actually resettled 31,000 refugees between 2012 and 2022, excluding the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukraine and Hong Kong programmes.
Indeed, in 2023, 62,000 grants of application for asylum were made, against 84,000 in-country applications, the second highest in the European league table. It equates to 76%: significantly higher than, for instance, Italy, Spain or France, and up from 33% in 2018. I accept that it has since dropped to around 67% but, with these numbers, the provision of basic accommodation, a weekly allowance, free healthcare and education for children is nevertheless a very significant drain on public resources, however laudable the aims are.
It would be appropriate to move to specifically consider the amendments that I have tabled in group 1. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my Amendments 3, 13, 18, 23, 26 and 27, which would all add sensible and reasonable safeguards to the Bill to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. Amendment 3 seeks to replace the proposed 21-day implementation period for changes to the Immigration Rules with a more measured timeframe of three months. Such a change reflects a pragmatic approach to policy-making, ensuring that any new rules governing refugee family reunion are implemented effectively and require sufficient time for consultation, preparation and operational adjustments, as well as for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in this House and the other place.
A rushed 21-day period risks overwhelming local authorities, housing providers and other stakeholders, potentially undermining the system’s integrity. In my own home area of Peterborough, we have seen significant strains on the delivery of public services, particularly things such as GP surgeries, the provision of local authority and housing association housing, and primary school places. Three months provides a balanced compromise, enabling thorough preparation while allowing the Government to move forward in a timely manner. This measured approach ensures that the new policies will be robust and sustainable.
Amendment 13 seeks to remove “unmarried partner” from the scope of family reunion eligibility. This amendment aligns family reunion provisions with the established principles of the Immigration Rules, which prioritise formal marital or civil partnerships over less formal relationships. Quite frankly, in the real world, it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unmarried partner is a bona fide claimant under these rules, and that is one of the many holes in the Bill as drafted.
So this is a matter of both consistency and clarity. Recognising only spouses and civil partners provides clear criteria for eligibility, reducing the potential for fraudulent claims. It also upholds traditional values that recognise marriage and civil partnership as the cornerstone of a stable family unit as it goes forward towards citizenship and playing a meaningful and useful role in UK society. This amendment ensures that the UK’s immigration policies remain fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. In fact, if your Lordships consider comparative regimes across Europe and other jurisdictions, they will see that this is very much in line with the practices adopted in other countries.
Amendment 18 proposes reducing the age limit for siblings eligible for family reunion from 25 to 21 years old. There is of course significant scientific data that says that a human being is not fully developed—certainly, their brain is not fully developed—perhaps until their mid-20s, but that is contested. It is generally accepted across the world that you are an adult either at 18 or, in the case of some legislation, at 21. Such a change reflects the practical realities of adulthood and independence. At 21, individuals are generally expected to be self-sufficient and capable of making their own rational decisions and establishing their own lifestyle.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that.
It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions.
This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation.
Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community.
In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the speakers’ list for today states:
“Other speakers within each group are expected to keep within 10 minutes”.
If noble Lords could respect that, your Lordships’ House would probably appreciate it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs.
My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements.
Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services.
The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010.
All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing.
Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified.
Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country.
We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law.
We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14.
The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards.
To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £25 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down.
For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting.
Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to
“Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”.
That paragraph refers to
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—”
and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill.
However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to
“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.
This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person?
It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group introduced by their three proposers. I do so for five reasons.
The first is that I believe in putting the traffickers out of business, and studies show that about half of those in the camps in Calais are family reunion cases: they are people wishing to join members of their family here.
The second is that the principal virtue, in my book, of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that it deals with the anomaly where we, with the Swiss and Liechtenstein, are the only countries in Europe that do not allow a resident refugee child granted asylum status to sponsor family members to come into the country. Our position is an anomaly, which, in my view, is quite unworthy of us and quite unfitting with our pride in being a sanctuary country.
Thirdly, I oppose the amendments because they are unworkable. I think the intention is probably to make them unworkable, but in practice, they would be unworkable. A good example is Amendment 7, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which would require the Secretary of State to publish in the initial statement and every six months how many people would be expected to come in under the Act and the approximate cost per person. We know the answer, actually. The Refugee Council study established that the numbers would be somewhere in the range of 240 to 750 a year, if we, as every other European country, except Liechtenstein and Switzerland, does, allowed a resident child granted asylum status to bring in family members. The range would be no more than 750—it might be as little as 240—and the cost would be about £1,000 a head.
So we are talking de minimis here on money but constructing extremely elaborate bureaucracy and laying requirements on local government—and central government, because we are talking about the accommodation requirements—to do an immense amount of reporting. This, for Members of this House who oppose overregulation and bureaucracy, is a rather surprising structure. I, of course, was a bureaucrat—a proud bureaucrat. I should be delighted to see many more bureaucrats given entertainment and occupation, but actually I think it is a very bad idea.
My fourth reason is that overspecifying, going into all the detail that this does, is itself a bad thing. I think it is correct that the Immigration Rules lay down the details and primary legislation should not. That is the right way of doing it, and all this heavy detail in here is making this a very peculiar piece of primary legislation and is overlapping with the existing Immigration Rules.
My fifth and last point, which relates to that one, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—because he is a distinguished lawyer and I am neither distinguished nor a lawyer—to think hard a contrario. If we set out such extraordinarily detailed specifications in primary legislation, what about the other Immigration Rules that do not simply copy primary legislation? Will it not be open to individuals to argue in the courts, against the authorities, that, because the specification in the Immigration Rules was not set out in primary legislation, it is in some way defective? I think it is very dangerous to get into a contrario territory, but I bow to the lawyers in this Committee who know more about it than I do.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his kindness in giving way. Do I understand his main point to be that real-time, empirical data is inimical to the formulation of good public policy? Is he actually saying that we should not collect data in order to make policy, for the future of our country, in respect of the provision of health services, housing and all the rest? That is a very odd argument to make, if I am perfectly honest.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was.
I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord has had his say.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.
Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.
On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe.
The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I—along with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP—wrote a report on children in northern France, Calais and Dunkirk some years ago. I find this whole group of amendments to the Bill extremely sad.
I want to concentrate on a legal issue, which I raise to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was certainly not an immigration lawyer but, as far as I understand the Immigration Rules, civil partners, who come up in Amendment 13, and adopted children, who come up in Amendment 14—both are referred to in Clause 1(5)—are already within the Immigration Rules. Consequently, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right, they are trying to reduce the Immigration Rules, not increase them.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I was unable to attend Second Reading, but I have come in today especially because this debate is a very interesting one. I say to those who really want to hear a well-argued and well-reasoned debate that it is the convention of this House that, when someone seeks to intervene with a point and they ask the speaker to give way, that person should be heard. It is very sad to see the tone of this debate.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. At the outset, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, if I caught him correctly, said that it was difficult to explain why the amendments in this group were laid. That is what I heard—I apologise if it is not what he said. It seems to me, from the conversation we have had on this group of amendments, that it is primarily about making further restrictions on what is already in the rules of our system and, secondly, about creating differences in timings. Those would then make it more difficult to put forward the principles that lie behind this Bill, which of course is about filling some of the eligibility gaps that currently exist for family reunion.
On timings, it strikes me as strange that we have two sets of amendments pulling in opposite directions. In one set we have amendments from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches saying that they want to restrict the amount of time that the Home Office and the Government have to make the new arrangements, while in the other set they are trying to expand them so that they have longer to do it. I do not know whether we can make a judgment on that, but it seems to me that what is common practice in the timings for dealing with changes that the Government have to make—the current procedure in this Bill of six months for the Government to prepare, and 21 days before Parliament—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I fear that he is wrong on this, in that we are seeking to open a larger window for parliamentary oversight, in terms of a statement laid by the Secretary of State under the conditions laid down in the Bill, but to give more time for those people more acutely affected at local level, such as local authorities, police and other agencies. That is why he may see a slight difference there, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas in respect of our amendments.
Lord German (LD)
I understand the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not understand how they can be put alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which seek to increase the time overall. Anyway, I am sure that noble Lords in this Committee will be able to make their minds up, having heard that interjection just then.
Beyond timing, of course, there are a number of issues relating to restrictions. The issue fundamental to this is that, on the family reunion potential, those who come with family reunion protection are largely women and children. We must not forget that this is the group of people we are talking about. Family reunion costs less to the British purse than it does if you have to manage things through the state. Looking after young people by local authorities does not come cheap, and having people within their own family background certainly helps to support every aspect of family life—but particularly for young people it makes sure they have a good start in life and can proceed.
I will not repeat the numbers because I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, but they are small. There are other numbers that might give an indication of the future—the ones that I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was asking about. In the past 12 months, 3,201 unaccompanied children were given protection in this country up to the year ending September 2024. Those 3,201 may have family; it is true that they may have parents somewhere, but you have to make a judgment as to how many would seek to bring their families here. We are one of only three countries on the European continent that do not operate on that potential.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.
First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.
Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.
Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.
Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.
Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.
Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.
Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.
The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.
Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.
I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:
“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]
That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:
“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]
On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.
I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.
I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.
Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.
The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.
I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues.
I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children.
We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned.
The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria.
I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now.
We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else.
I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of
“a person granted protection status”.
So that is all people, not just those under 18.
To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done.
Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal.
This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. It is very gracious of the noble Baroness to apologise—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I think we need to look at the time and bring the Committee to a conclusion fairly quickly. If the noble Lord would help us by not speaking to his amendment, then we can get on with that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On the basis of being as collegiate and collaborative as the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—before I have even spoken to it.