Oral Answers to Questions
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Government support zero emission vehicles through taxation incentives, vehicle grants and funding infrastructure roll-out. In January, EV sales were 42% higher than in January 2024. The recent National Audit Office report showed that we are on track to meet the 300,000 public charging points needed for expected demand in 2030.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Electric vehicle demand is increasing. The Government’s commitment to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 will have a significant impact on UK emissions, but there remain many misunderstandings and myths about electric vehicles. They are safer and cleaner, and whole-life costs are significantly cheaper. What can the Government do to increase consumer confidence by dispelling some of the nonsense peddled by vested interests?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend’s expertise in the field is welcome. Showcasing the benefits of EV ownership and the growth of the public charging point network are vital to supporting the transition away from diesel and petrol-powered cars. As he will know, EV drivers can save hundreds of pounds a year, and the average range of a new EV is now 236 miles. That is about two weeks’ driving for most people, and of course it is cleaner and greener. We are working closely with industry stakeholders to promote positive messaging around EVs and to improve consumer confidence.
James Asser
One of the challenges facing people who are moving to electric vehicles is the charging infrastructure, particularly in inner cities. Local authorities have worked to try to help that, but they have limited resources. My old team at Newham council did a deal with Uber to supply 400 on-street charging units. Does the Minister agree that that sort of partnership using public sector actors with private finance could help resolve the issue? Could the Government look at ways they could work with local authorities to secure those public-private partnerships?
Lilian Greenwood
It is great to hear about Newham council’s partnership that was developed under my hon. Friend’s leadership. The £381 million local EV infrastructure fund does just as he suggests, and is expected to deliver 100,000 charging points across the country, supporting those drivers without off-street parking to switch to electric vehicles.
Sarah Coombes
The future of the car industry is important to West Brom, and that future lies in electric vehicles. One of the key issues on the demand side is that consumers do not have enough confidence in second-hand EVs, despite manufacturer warranties and increasingly good battery life. What steps are the Government taking to improve consumer confidence when buying second- hand EVs?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one in three used electric cars are now under £20,000, and data suggests that owners should expect an EV to last just as long as an internal combustion engine car. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has developed a new global technical regulation, which would set standards for the lifespan of an EV battery and its minimum durability. We are analysing options for the implementation of such regulations in the UK.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What the Minister says is all very well, but why do the Government not support my Exemption from Value Added Tax (Public Electric Vehicle Charging Points) Bill?
Lilian Greenwood
As the hon. Member knows, matters relating to taxation are for the Treasury rather than the Department for Transport, but I am sure that the Chancellor will be looking at the proposals that he brings forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the increased uptake of electric vehicles. Indeed we do still need to dispel many myths. In my constituency, charging infrastructure is still a big issue, and the distribution networks struggle to speed up connecting to the infrastructure that is needed. Will the Minister outline what work she will do with distribution networks to increase the expansion of EV charging networks?
Lilian Greenwood
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, there has been a rapid increase in the roll-out of electric charging points—it was up by more than 40% last year. However, she is absolutely right that in some cases that roll-out is difficult, because it is held back by the availability of capacity on the network. That is precisely why we are working across Government, including with my colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to unblock those things, so that we can ensure that everyone can access the electric vehicle charging points that they need close to home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. I am not a petrolhead, but I do love my diesel vehicle. Those of us who live in the countryside understand that having a diesel vehicle is incredibly important, and there are no electric charging points across the rural countryside. There need to be more of those charging points on the high street and in the shopping centres, and there definitely need to be more of them in the countryside, since those of us who live there are being disadvantaged by the electric car process as it goes forward. What is being done to help the rural community—those of us who live in the countryside and those of us who represent them—take advantage of electric cars as well? The charging points are not there; the system does not work.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member makes an important point: we need to ensure that there is access everywhere across our nation to electric vehicle charging points. In the autumn Budget, we committed £200 million to supporting the roll-out of charging infrastructure, which is bolstered by over £6 billion in private investment that has been committed up to 2030. The hon. Member will be pleased to hear that there are over 73,000 public charging points in the UK, over 20,000 have been added in the past year, and there has been a 45% increase in rural charging points over the past year.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Last year, just one in 10 consumers buying a new car chose battery electric, and in 2024, the private market for battery electric was 20% lower than Government intervention had tried to manipulate it to be. Without fleet sales—which we know are warped by huge tax incentives, promoting them over practical vehicle choices—electric car demand just is not there. When will the Minister understand that people are crying out for a different way to defossilise and decarbonise their private vehicles? Battery electric just is not popular, so when will the Government stop trying to tell people what they should want? This is just a “Government knows best” attitude at its very worst, is it not?
Lilian Greenwood
What an absolutely astonishing intervention by the shadow Minister. It was his Government who introduced the zero emission vehicle mandate, and we are not proposing to change the trajectory that they introduced. I would gently remind him that many fleet vehicles are in fact private vehicles, as people choose to lease their vehicles or access them through a salary sacrifice scheme. Last year, the UK was the largest market in Europe—in fact, in the world—for EV vehicles. He is talking nonsense.
Greg Smith
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ January report simply does not back up what the Minister has just said. I repeat that only one in 10 consumers—the people we all represent in this House—actively chose a battery electric vehicle. As the Minister knows from her time on the Transport Select Committee when we looked at the future of fuel, there are other technologies out there. The Government like to say that they are technology-neutral, but the ZEV mandate’s myopic focus on the tailpipe rather than whole system analysis effectively denies our innovators the room to defossilise and decarbonise in a manner that consumers want. Surely the Minister sees that, so instead of trying to force people to buy battery electric, will the Government just get the bureaucracy out of the way and let our innovators innovate?
Lilian Greenwood
I wonder whether the shadow Minister has actually met any vehicle manufacturers. If he had, he would know that they are investing incredibly heavily in the switch to battery electric vehicles. I and my ministerial colleagues have met manufacturers representing 95% of the UK car market to understand their concerns, and we will be working with them to ensure we support all UK vehicle manufacturers, who have—as they would put it—bet the house on the transition to electric vehicles.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We have empowered local councils to tackle the highway maintenance backlog, which is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We have made an immediate start by providing an extra £500 million next year, representing an increase of nearly 40% for most councils. We will end the pothole plague on our roads and ensure safer journeys for everyone.
Emma Foody
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I recently met the roads Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood)—and National Highways about the need for investment in Seaton Burn and Moor Farm roundabouts. Those critical pieces of infrastructure are already struggling with capacity and congestion. The local councils and the North East combined authority have all highlighted the fact that upgrades will be crucial for growth in the north-east. Will the Secretary of State consider how this Government could support the project, and whether the scheme can test a new form of transport business case for projects intended to deliver growth in all of our regions?
Heidi Alexander
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I know she is a committed advocate for improvements to the road network in the north-east. I recognise the importance of Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts to her local area, and I assure her that both are being considered as part of a pipeline of projects for our future road investment strategy.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
A recent freedom of information request revealed that, of identified highways spending across the Bradford district by Bradford council over the past six years, £49 million was spent within Bradford city itself, but only £4 million was spent in Keighley and my wider constituency, despite streets such as Elliott Street in Silsden being in a very poor state of repair. Will the Secretary of State write to leaders at Bradford council and remind them that highways spending needs to be spent equally across the whole Bradford district, including places such as Keighley and Ilkley, and not just within Bradford city centre?
Heidi Alexander
I am not the sort of Secretary of State who would sit at my desk in Whitehall and instruct local authorities to spend certain amounts of money on certain roads. I expect local authorities to take strategic decisions based on where the investment is needed, and I will leave it to local leaders to make those decisions.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Too many of Britain’s roads are in a shocking state of disrepair, as the Secretary of State says. In my constituency, Labour-run Merton council has the worst roads in London and the second worst in the country. Some 40% of our local roads are rated as poor by her Department. Although I welcome the coming year’s increase in funding, that is only a short-term measure and not based on need; Merton and others have received less than authorities whose roads are in a better condition. As Labour-run Merton has failed to maintain its roads and has not been bailed out by its friends in the Government, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what action can be taken?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to ensure that roads in his constituency and across London are maintained to an adequate standard. The increase of £500 million in this year’s allocation to highways maintenance represents an average 40% increase for local authorities. It will be making the difference, and I would be happy to discuss this issue with him further.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government are committed to delivering the better, more reliable bus services that passengers deserve. We have already made significant progress by introducing the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to help local leaders get the powers they need, and by announcing investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services.
Sam Rushworth
I thank the Minister for that answer. The cost of transport is a huge cost of living pressure for children and young people in my constituency who are trying to access education and social and leisure opportunities. What assurance can the Minister give me that the buses Bill will end a system in which bus services are controlled by ideology, and make it a system that puts them at the service of local people?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important local bus services are in providing access to education and allowing young people to get around. Empowering local leaders to improve services is at the heart of our reforms, including through the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, so that bus services deliver for hard-working families and communities throughout the country.
Michael Wheeler
My constituents in Worsley and Eccles face high levels of congestion on our roads, especially during their rush-hour commute. We benefit from Greater Manchester’s Bee network, but it only takes a temporary set of traffic lights, roadworks or an accident to back things up. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to give the necessary powers and encouragement to our local communities and decision makers to create joined-up public and private transport networks that will alleviate congestion?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue and will know that this Government are acting quickly to respond to his concerns. As outlined in the “English Devolution” White Paper, we will empower strategic authorities to play a greater role in co-ordinating their local road networks. That includes removing unnecessary Secretary of State consent requirements for certain local highway decisions, potentially including lane rental schemes, which will speed up decision making.
Jade Botterill
So many people who live in rural towns across my constituency rely on bus services to go to work, school and hospital appointments, but too often buses are running late or never turn up at all. Last week I met local resident Nicola from Emley who told me that when she was unable to drive it was nearly impossible for her daughter Olivia to attend after-school clubs. Will the Minister advise me on how this Government will hold failing bus companies to account and will help improve services in our local areas?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour and I understand the challenges her constituents face. We know that local bus services are not currently delivering for people around the country. We are committed to changing that, and our bus services Bill will give local leaders the tools they need to deliver reliable bus services that truly meet the needs of local communities, including in rural areas.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I know that the Minister is s truly passionate advocate for bus services, but if he were privileged enough to live in the beautiful village of Hixon in my constituency and wanted to get to the surgery in Great Haywood, he would have to travel into Stafford on a bus and then on a bus from Stafford to Great Hayward. Will he update the House on what additional help and support Staffordshire county council might look forward to receiving so that Hixon residents are able to get directly to Great Hayward?
Simon Lightwood
The Government are determined to empower local leaders to make decisions about their local bus services. They can choose from a variety of options in that toolkit, including franchising, which is now open to all local transport authorities. We are lifting the ban on municipal bus companies and improving enhanced partnerships. It is for local leaders to make those decisions, and we are empowering them to do so.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Rural communities such as mine rely on bus services as a vital lifeline, but too often these services are limited and infrequent. Private operators dominate the market in my area, yet there is no minimum service requirement to ensure that people can get to work, school or medical appointments. Will the Government guarantee a minimum level of service so that rural communities are not left stranded?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the bus services Bill includes the socially necessary local services measure. Under the new measure, local transport authorities operating under an enhanced partnership will need to identify local services which they consider socially necessary and put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. They will also need to consider the alternative options that are available.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Last week I held a two-hour question and answer session with Disability Action Yorkshire. One issue that came up was the inability of disabled people to use their bus passes before 9 o’clock, limiting them in getting to work, accessing leisure opportunities or seeing family and friends. Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to improve local bus access would be to be allow disabled people to use their passes before 9 o’clock?
Simon Lightwood
The Government already invest £700 million in the national concessionary travel scheme in order to fund those bus passes, and at the last Budget we announced over £1 billion of funding to support buses. We changed the formula for BSIP—bus service improvement plans—away from the competitive “Hunger Games” style contests under the previous Government. The hon. Member’s local area will have received funding and it is able to use that funding to go above and beyond what is set on a national level.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Open access operators will continue to have a place in our reformed Great British railways. We have supported new proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway, and existing track access rights will be honoured. Open access can provide benefits, but it must not come at the cost of better services for passengers and better value for taxpayers.
Wendy Morton
In her recent letter to the Office of Rail and Road, the Transport Secretary appeared to push against open access agreements, yet last week, as she has mentioned today, the Government signalled their intention to support the request to license the Wrexham to London Euston line, which will come through Aldridge in my constituency. Will the Transport Secretary clarify her position on the Wrexham to Euston line, particularly in regard to the inclusion of Aldridge train station? As she will be aware, thanks to the Labour mayor, the funding for that station has been raided and put into his pet projects.
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s commitment to making the case for a new station at Aldridge, but I gently point out to her that in the 14 years of her party’s Government, including her own stint in the Department for Transport, the station failed to materialise. The West Midlands combined authority has had to prioritise the delivery of schemes that are in construction. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach, but I appreciate that she will continue to make the case for her own station.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Open access operator Grand Central already runs five services daily from Sunderland to London King’s Cross through my constituency, but unfortunately they currently do not stop. My constituents have endured years of poor rail services from Northern Rail, with just one overcrowded two-carriage train an hour, which is often cancelled or delayed. While I welcome this Government’s investment in 450 new trains for Northern Rail, we need some immediate solutions. Will the Minister urge the ORR to approve the application from Grand Central to allow these trains to stop at stations in my Easington constituency?
Heidi Alexander
Open access operators currently account for 1% of our railways, and they do not always have the same public service obligations as other train operating companies. We have always supported open access operators where they genuinely add value and do not divert revenue away from existing operators, all of which are supported by the taxpayer in some form. I would add that we need to make best use of constrained capacity on the rail network. Ensuring that the railway can recover from problems on the railways is also important to me.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Talking of access, several years ago, Greater Anglia demolished half of Wickford station to extend some of the platforms. However, after nearly three years of endless excuses, missed deadlines and, frankly, broken promises, it still has not rebuilt it. I regret to say that I have lost all confidence in the senior management of Greater Anglia. If they told me today was a Thursday, I would double-check it. Can I go over their head and ask the Secretary of State for a personal meeting with the Rail Minister so that we can finally get Wickford station rebuilt, despite Greater Anglia, rather than because of it?
Heidi Alexander
I will happily ask the Rail Minister to meet the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that progress can be made at Wickford.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I know that my right hon. Friend will be delighted by the news that Go-op will be operating a new mandate for return services between Swindon and Taunton. Does she agree that this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to improving connectivity across the country? Can we hope for such improvements to connectivity in my little corner of the world in Berkshire?
Heidi Alexander
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this proposal, which demonstrates the pragmatic approach we take to open access operators. Go-op will be the first co-operatively owned train service running anywhere in the UK. If there are any investors out there thinking about investing in that service, I encourage them to look closely at it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
As part of our reforms to the railway, we have set out that we will continue to lease rolling stock when we take contracts into public ownership, but we will apply a single directing mind approach to eliminate barriers to sharing rolling stock better across the network. We will consider the best funding and financing structures for future orders and contracts in partnership with private capital.
Graham Leadbitter
At the moment, the rolling stock leasing companies take more than £1 billion of profit out of the railway. A substantial amount of that could be reinvested in improving the railway network. With the Bill for Great British Railways due to come to Parliament soon, will the Secretary of State look seriously at alternative financing models such as EUROFIMA—the European company for the financing of railroad rolling stock—or even a publicly owned ROSCO that could deliver rolling stock at a considerably lower price? Indeed, will she be more socialist and more ambitious with the Bill?
Heidi Alexander
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not lack any ambition when it comes to Great British Railways. It would cost billions in taxpayers’ money to buy existing rolling stock, at a time when there are many pressures on the public purse. My officials have been engaging regularly with EUROFIMA to consider the potential for UK membership and how EUROFIMA finance could be deployed in the UK.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Department recognises the critical importance of the east coast main line and has invested £4 billion in a combination of infrastructure enhancements and rolling stock upgrades that will help to deliver journey time, reliability and capacity improvements. The full benefit of this investment will be felt with the introduction of a revised timetable in December 2025. The Department continues to work closely with Network Rail to explore opportunities to improve performance and resilience.
Tracy Gilbert
My constituents have raised concerns about the reliability of services on the east coast main line, with one constituent receiving delay repay compensation for five out of six journeys he took over a two-month period. I welcome the correspondence I have had with the Rail Minister on the action that the Department for Transport is taking with rail partners, including through the east coast digital programme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the first trains utilising new digital signalling technology will be on the tracks by the end of the year? When does she expect passengers to feel the full benefit of this welcome upgrade?
Lilian Greenwood
The east coast digital programme is delivering digital signalling on 100 miles of the east coast main line. The technology will deliver an inherent improvement to service reliability and uplift performance and capacity across the line, including for my hon. Friend’s constituents. The first trains are forecast to start running under digital signalling from early 2026. The number of services running under digital signalling will increase until the full programme is expected to be complete in the early 2030s.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
It is our ambition through public ownership to deliver a more affordable railway. This year’s fare increase of 4.6% is the lowest absolute increase in three years. We are committed to reforming the overcomplicated fares system and expanding ticketing innovations like pay-as-you-go in urban areas across the country.
Sir Edward Leigh
When the Secretary of State finally steps in and knocks heads together and we get our Azuma train to Grimsby via Market Rasen, will she instruct the railway company to name the locomotive Margaret Thatcher to remind us all that the best way to reduce the cost of rail services is to end restrictive trade union practices?
Heidi Alexander
I hate to disappoint the Father of the House, but I am afraid that I will not be making such a commitment today.
Andrew Rosindell
The British people pay some of the highest rail fares in Europe. However, the Government seem to prioritise the size of the socialist state, by kowtowing to trade unions with radical public pay rises and nationalisation plans. Will the Secretary of State instead please focus on improving the lot of commuters—particularly Romford’s hard-working commuters—and take real steps to reduce rail fares and improve railway services?
Heidi Alexander
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the gall to raise this issue when, under his party’s Government, fares rose at around twice the speed of wages. I also point out that since 2020, train operating companies have paid out nearly £1 billion to their parent companies, signed off by Conservative Ministers in the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about costs and value for money on the railway, I suggest he start by looking in the mirror.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It was, in fact, a Conservative Secretary of State who forced fare rises on Transport for London in exchange for covid emergency funding. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to put TfL on a better footing in the future, including backing great projects such as the one in my constituency to upgrade and provide step-free access at one of the busiest stations in the country at South Kensington?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: in the middle of a global pandemic, the Conservatives were still obsessed with settling old political scores over fares in London, rather than doing right by the capital. I vividly remember a meeting with the then Secretary of State to discuss how we could keep services safely running, which ended with him telling me, “This would have been so much easier if you hadn’t frozen fares.” Unlike the Conservatives, this Government will always do right by the capital, as well as the rest of the country.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Can I ask that this UK Government do not follow the approach taken by the Scottish Government on public ownership? ScotRail fares are set for another inflation-busting increase in April, following an 8.7% hike last year and the reintroduction of peak fares in September. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP should be making rail more affordable, instead of hitting passengers with painful fare hikes time and again? The increases are bad for Scotland’s rail passengers, bad for our economy and bad for the environment.
Heidi Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that we will bring the train operating companies into public ownership properly, and that we will not repeat the mistakes we have seen in Scotland.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am very interested by that last answer, because the Government do think that nationalisation will reduce the cost of rail travel. What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail?
Heidi Alexander
We will be increasing value for money in the way we operate our railways. To start off with, we will be getting rid of up to £100 million a year in management fees that we are currently paying out of the public purse to the train operating companies. We are determined to drive up performance on our railways and give better value for money to the taxpayer.
Jerome Mayhew
The latest experiment in nationalisation has shown in just two years that state inefficiency has pushed up costs—not reduced them—by £600 million, forcing fares to rise, alongside an increase in delays, a slump in customer satisfaction, and cuts, instead of improvements, to services. The data shows that in England, Greater Anglia has been the best performing operator, saving money for taxpayers while serving passengers with modern, punctual trains. The Secretary of State is about to launch a public consultation on nationalisation—one that has been as delayed as ScotRail trains. I am told that even the plan to publish it today has been further delayed, with the excuse of No. 10 on the line. If the Secretary of State consults, she has to be prepared to listen. Will she now listen to the deep concerns of the rail industry, and not just the ever-generous unions, and avoid another disastrous nationalisation?
Heidi Alexander
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation on establishing Great British Railways is coming soon, and I look forward to discussing it further with him. I am confident that by bringing together the management of track and train, we can strip out duplication in our railways, provide better value for the taxpayer and ensure that trains are turning up on time, with reliable and punctual services. That is what we will deliver.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Government recognise the importance of high quality transport infrastructure as part of a well-functioning, integrated transport network. We are supporting all local authorities to improve transport infrastructure, including through our £1.6 billion investment in local roads. I know that my hon. Friend’s roads are littered with potholes, which is why they are getting a share of our 50% uplift.
Ben Goldsborough
Norfolk’s economy, to fire on all cylinders, needs a decent rural road network. The Thickthorn junction in my constituency is outdated and urgently needs upgrading to support growth and unlock new homes. Will the Minister back the project and visit to see at first hand why the Government should put Norfolk at the heart of our investment plans?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for the needs of his rural constituents. The central mission of this Government is to support economic growth, and this is one of a number of road investments under consideration. In the past week, we have approved upgrades to four major road projects across England. On the specific scheme, I hope to be able to say more in the coming weeks, and perhaps I will be visiting his constituency.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Sleaford has a beautiful grade II listed railway station in popular use. However, it is very difficult for those with disabilities to access the second platform because there is no lift. I have long campaigned for a lift, and I worked with East Midlands Railway, with the financial support of the previous Government, on a feasibility study for a lift that is in keeping with the heritage station. Will this Government back access for my constituents and access for people to come and visit our beautiful town?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. Improving accessibility in our railways stations is incredibly important. I am sure that the Rail Minister will be happy to write to her on the specifics of her station and to consider the proposals that have been made.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The last Labour Government halved the number of people killed on our roads each year. Under the Conservatives that progress stalled, with only a 12% reduction between 2010 and 2023, when almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is about one casualty every 18 minutes. That shocking statistic is why improving road safety is one of my key priorities. We are developing our road safety strategy, the first in a decade, and will set out more details in due course.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the Minister for that answer. Nearly 400 of my constituents have filled in my survey about the dangerously short slip roads on the A34 at East Ilsley and Beedon. They include Nick, who never uses the Beedon junction when his young family are in the car and is even considering moving house because he believes it is a real risk to their lives. Will the Minister meet me and raise the issue of dangerous junctions with National Highways, so we can make them safe for local people?
Lilian Greenwood
I commend my hon. Friend for her support for safer roads. National Highways has undertaken several safety studies on sections of the A34. I am aware that improvement works took place on the East Ilsley slip in 2019, including work to widen, resurface and add new road markings. It continues to review concerns about safety on the road and is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further and plan a site visit. I will, of course, keep up to date with progress.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Bridgwater railway station has a bus stop that has remained unusable since its construction due to road layout and safety issues. Despite this being a relatively small fix, Somerset council has yet to take action. What additional support can the Government provide to ensure that buses can stop at the station safely and improve connectivity in my constituency?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. It does sound like it is a matter for his local council, but I am sure that my officials would be very happy to work with it to provide any advice and support it may need to work out how to provide a safer service in that area.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Improving performance is a top priority for this Government as we establish Great British Railways. We regularly meet managing directors of train operating companies and their Network Rail counterparts to demand action to raise standards. Great British Railways will reunite the management of track and train, and will make joined-up, whole-system decisions that will improve performance for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers alike.
Harpreet Uppal
The TransPennine route upgrade is the biggest rail infrastructure project in the country, and my constituency is at the centre of it. One of the main benefits for passengers will be faster and more reliable trains. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the project, and tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that local communities such as those in Huddersfield benefit fully from improvements in rail performance?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of this investment to her constituency. The rail upgrade will double the number of seats between Huddersfield and Manchester, and will increase the number by 30% between Huddersfield and Leeds. Service reliability will also improve. Moreover, 60% of the workforce will be employed within 25 miles of the route and 66% of spending will be within the local supply chain, which will lead to local growth and jobs—so it is good news all round.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I want to improve rail performance in my constituency, and the extension of the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Hawick and Newcastleton and on to Carlisle has strong local and cross-party support. Has the UK Government’s share of the funding for the feasibility study—secured as part of the Borderlands growth deal—been confirmed, and will it be released to Scottish Borders Council imminently?
Heidi Alexander
I understand that officials in my Department are speaking to Scottish colleagues, and I hope to be in a position to say more about that soon, potentially as part of the spending review.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
This Government are committed to growth, which regional airports support by serving their local communities, creating jobs, and acting as gateways to international opportunities. Heathrow expansion could give more regions access to a bigger international network through their local airports, thus boosting productivity further.
Sarah Edwards
In my constituency, the largest sectoral employer is logistics. Tamworth sits within the “golden triangle” for distribution, centred around the European rail link. Within this hub is East Midlands airport, which handles approximately 440,000 tonnes of freight each year, second only to Heathrow. What steps will the Minister take to fuel economic growth across the west midlands, reviewing capacity at our regional airports, including Birmingham?
Mike Kane
As my hon. Friend says, freight is hugely important for growth. That is why the Chancellor recently announced plans to build a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park at East Midlands airport, which will unlock up to £1 billion of investment and 2,000 jobs on the site.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We are getting on with delivering this Government’s plan for change. Last week I approved upgrades to four major road projects across Wiltshire, Leeds, Essex and Buckinghamshire. That £90 million investment will reduce journey times, ease congestion and improve safety. It is on the back of drivers’ switching to electric cars in record-breaking numbers, with sales in January more than 40% higher than those last year and nearly 20,000 public charge points added in 2024 alone. We are backing, with a £205 million investment, the west midlands metro extension, which will take trams from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill. We are cutting journey times and improving connections for towns with poor public transport links, and yesterday we announced a £300 million investment to get Britain walking and cycling, with hundreds of new footpaths and cycle lanes. We are delivering the basics of a better transport system, which means improving the everyday journeys that drive economic growth and make people’s lives better.
Johanna Baxter
I met key Scottish stakeholders recently to discuss proposals to bring to the Glasgow city region a metro scheme interconnecting more and more parts of our region, including the towns and villages in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital for the Scottish Government to show the same ambition for growth in Scotland as the UK Government have shown in their recent transport announcements, and will she work with the Scottish Government to ensure that this project maximises investment and opportunity for my constituents?
Heidi Alexander
I will always work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that this Government’s ambitions for transport reach all corners of the UK. The Scottish Government have had a record settlement through the Budget, so I look forward to hearing more about plans for a greater Glasgow metro scheme as they develop.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Heathrow airport is already the largest single-site payer of business rates in the country, paying approximately £124 million annually. To fund the Chancellor’s next spending spree, the Valuation Office Agency is currently revaluating airports in England and Wales, and any significant increase could impact Heathrow’s ability to fund airport expansion and a third runway. Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest estimate of how much Heathrow’s business rates will increase by?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
This was a policy cooked up by the Valuation Office Agency under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by the last Government. We have engaged with airports on this matter and asked them to continue to engage with the Valuation Office Agency.
Gareth Bacon
I notice that the Minister did not answer my question, so I will assist him. The estimate is that Heathrow’s rates bill will increase fivefold to £600 million annually, putting substantial additional pressure on Heathrow’s finances. In the light of that, will the Minister confirm the long-standing policy that the full cost of a third runway, including related works such as relocating, tunnelling or bridging over the M25, will be fully funded by the private sector and not by the taxpayer?
Mike Kane
The airports national policy statement from 2018, which was two Governments ago, made it clear that any proposal—we have not had a proposal come forward—should treat surface access appropriately, and that should be funded by the private sector where possible.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
As my hon. Friend knows, delivering a transport system that meets local, regional and national needs will play a vital role in delivering the missions of this Government. I encourage him to continue to work with Derbyshire county council, which will hopefully be under new leadership in May, and with our excellent East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, to advocate for his constituents’ priorities. I would, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss this.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
In her previous role as deputy London Mayor for transport, the Secretary of State stated she was “clear” in her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Is she still clear in her opposition, and if not, what has changed her mind?
Heidi Alexander
When I was deputy Mayor for transport in London, I was speaking in that capacity at that time, reflecting the views of the Mayor of London and City Hall on a previous Heathrow expansion scheme. As Secretary of State, I will consider any airport expansion proposals on their merits and in line with existing processes. Balancing economic growth and our environmental obligations is central to all my work in this role, and I will always act in the national interest, doing what is right for the country as a whole.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
This Government stand with local road users who are frustrated by roadworks that cause unnecessary disruption. While councils and utility companies should always work together to minimise the impact of their works, we are also taking action: we are doubling fixed penalty notices for utility companies that do not comply with certain requirements for carrying out their street works, and we have extended overrun charges of up to £10,000 per day to weekends and bank holidays, to prevent overrunning roadworks.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
There is a balance to be struck here. I welcome services such as those that run to Hull; they open up new routes and new connectivity. I have, however, asked the Office of Rail and Road to consider the balance in the revenue that they abstract from public operators, and to ensure that we are using constrained capacity in our network appropriately to deliver excellent services for passengers.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The state of our roads is a daily reminder of Tory failure, which is why this Government have provided record funding to fix them. Derbyshire is getting its share of the extra £20 million going to the East Midlands combined authority. We expect the council to get on with the job and to tell local residents how it intends to use the extra taxpayers’ money that it is getting.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituent Kevin Stephenson and many other people in Hartlepool have complained about the shocking underperformance of Northern Rail. He has witnessed passengers being asked to wait in toilets in order to allow more people on to trains. Services are frequently cancelled, promises of additional carriages have not materialised, and residents are regularly left stranded at stations. Will the Minister work with me to fix the unacceptable level of service?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Northern Rail. We recognise that its performance is totally unacceptable, and with the challenges that Northern Rail faces, it will take time to become a stable and reliable service. I would be absolutely delighted to work with my hon. Friend.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I fully support the Chancellor’s call for fresh proposals for Heathrow. Some of our airports in the south-east are running at or near capacity. We cannot pretend that that is not the case, and I am not prepared to be part of a Government who duck the difficult decisions. As the person who may ultimately be taking planning decisions on any application for a third runway at Heathrow, I will judge any scheme on its merits. We will update the airports national policy statement, and any expansion scheme must meet our legal and environmental obligations.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, the south-west peninsula already contributes significantly to the UK economy, including through life sciences and climate tech. We are, however, held back from reaching our full potential by under-investment in transport connectivity, which is made worse by upcoming works at Old Oak Common and the continuing bottleneck on the A303. Will the Minister commit to developing a strategic investment plan to ensure that the south-west peninsula has the transport infrastructure it needs to unlock further growth?
Simon Lightwood
As I have said before, growth is the priority mission of this Government, and we are committed to empowering local leaders. A regional transport strategy, and a strategic investment plan for the south-west, has been developed by the sub-national transport body Peninsula Transport.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
As well as being home to both GCHQ and NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters, Gloucestershire has the largest concentration of cyber-tech businesses and aerospace engineering firms outside London, but the county, and particularly Tewkesbury, is subject to slow, unreliable and grossly outdated rail services. It is also underserved by road transport links eastward. The Government recently announced that they will develop a silicon valley between Milton Keynes—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals—I think you need an Adjournment debate. Who is going to answer that?
Simon Lightwood
I will certainly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Department for Transport analysis carried out in 2017 showed that expanding Heathrow would displace 27,000 jobs from the UK regions to London by 2050, with 17 million fewer passengers using non-London airports. Does the Minister hope that the same analysis, if done now, would come to a different conclusion in order to ensure that UK economic growth really does benefit all UK regions and not just west London?
Mike Kane
The Government are committed to regional airports. I am proudly wearing my “Yes to R2” badge from when we built a second runway at Manchester airport in 2001. The position is quite the opposite of what my hon. Friend describes: under the 2018 airports national policy statement, the number of connections from Heathrow to regional airports was expected to increase if Heathrow expanded, increasing productivity in those regions.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Northern Trains runs one train per day on the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes line. Does the Secretary of State agree that one train per day is pretty pointless? Will she arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister for me and other affected MPs, so that we can discuss how to secure a better service?
Heidi Alexander
Reliable, frequent train services are important, no matter where in the country we live. I will ask the Rail Minister for a meeting.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that achieving economic growth requires sustained investment in our transport infra- structure? Would she be willing to visit Glasgow International airport to learn more about how transport infrastructure can assist with the further development of the proposed investment zone in my constituency?
Simon Lightwood
I agree that investment in our transport infrastructure across the country is essential to our growth mission. I am aware of the investment zone bid involving Glasgow airport, and the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), would be delighted to visit in the near future.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that large swathes of British Airways flights between London and Scotland are automatically cancelled when there are serious weather or technical issues at Heathrow. British Airways says that if the Secretary of State’s officials, the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow and airlines worked together, the number of cancellations could be minimised, even in those circumstances, so will she facilitate those discussions?
Mike Kane
The right hon. Member raises an important point. The resilience of the UK aviation sector is important, and key to its success, so we will facilitate any discussions to make sure we are always on an improvement trajectory.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Access for disabled people was a condition of opening up planning for the York Central development. However, I hear that the condition will be bypassed, and that planning will go ahead without disabled access being put in place. That clearly impedes disabled people. Can we ensure that difficult engineering work is undertaken before planning permission is granted?
Simon Lightwood
The accessibility of all modes of transport is extremely important to this Government. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Despite my constituency being only a stone’s throw from Heathrow, we have no direct rail link to the country’s busiest airport. Last week, Heathrow Southern Railway submitted a business case to the Government. When will the Government consider it, to ensure that my constituents can get a train to Heathrow?
Heidi Alexander
Alongside the question of how many planes should take off and land at Heathrow, there is the critical question of how people get to the airport. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be happy to discuss it further with him.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Learner drivers in Basingstoke have been left stranded for months—in some cases, years—unable to book a driving test. That is affecting their jobs, their education and the local economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that urgent action is needed to extend test centre hours, to ramp up the recruitment of examiners, and to clamp down on the rip-off companies that book multiple slots, only to flog them at higher prices?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns on behalf of learner drivers. On 18 December, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency set out a seven-point plan that recognises the need to fix the driving test booking system, so that we can get new drivers on the road. I will hold it to account for delivery of that plan and the changes that my hon. Friend and his constituents need to see.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
When the previous Government cancelled High Speed 2, they promised more than £4 billion for projects in the north and the midlands. Do the Government still plan to deliver on that, and when should we expect to see that money in the north?
Heidi Alexander
I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but that was fantasy money. We are working through a pipeline of transport infrastructure projects, and will make announcements alongside the spending review.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The long-promised platform 1 lift at Hertford North station, due to be delivered under the Access for All scheme, has been delayed yet again. This leaves some of my disabled constituents having to travel back up the line to get a different train to platform 2, so that they can use the lift there. Will the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss how we can urgently drive forward the lift project for my constituents?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns about disabled access at his local station. We want to ensure that everyone can access our public transport networks, and I would be happy to ensure that I or one of my colleagues met him.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
On economic growth, which we have discussed, will the Secretary of State clarify, for the benefit of the Conservative party, that economic growth depends on rather more than a well-oiled revolving door between the Tory party and big business—a door through which a former Tory Transport Minister and Member of the other place unsuccessfully attempted to walk last week?
Heidi Alexander
Delivering economic growth requires a proper plan for investment in our transport infrastructure. That is exactly what this Government are determined to deliver.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Once Birmingham’s Camp Hill line reopens, we will need track investment if we are to restore the pre-pandemic service frequencies on the cross-city line, including to Northfield and Longbridge. Will the Minister look fully at the case for upgrading King’s Norton station?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is an assiduous and informed campaigner for improved rail services for his constituents. He will know that funding for the midlands rail hub includes funding for designs for reinstated island platforms at King’s Norton. Decisions still need to be taken on future investment, but I know that he will push for construction to start as soon as possible.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Calder Valley line was listed as a top priority for improvements by Transport for the North’s electrification taskforce 10 years ago, back in 2015, yet my constituents are still waiting for those improvements. Will the Minister commit this Government to delivering the infrastructure for my constituents that the last Government could not?
Heidi Alexander
Network Rail is completing a strategic outline business case, covering electrification of the Calder Valley line. The business case will be considered in the context of the wider electrification strategy, so that we can determine how to deliver the best possible benefits across the region.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Next month, railway enthusiasts from around the world will come to my constituency, where we will mark the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway, which took off from the town of Shildon. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Rail Minister to meet me and other MPs along that route to talk about how the Government can be part of those celebrations?
Heidi Alexander
I am sure that is an invitation that the Rail Minister could not possibly refuse.
Mr Speaker
On that basis, I look forward to a Minister opening the Coppull railway station, or at least doing an impact study on the main line.
Ukraine
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
Yesterday, at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary, we saw almost 50 nations and partners standing together. Ukraine is backed by the members of the group, and by billions of dollars-worth of arms and ammunition that have been committed to keep its warfighters equipped. That will increase pressure on Putin, help force him to the table, and bring a sustainable peace closer.
We were pleased that Secretary Hegseth confirmed the US’s continued commitment to the group, to Ukraine’s pursuit of what he called “a durable peace”, and to the importance of security guarantees. We heard his call for European nations to step up; we are, and we will. NATO allies pledged €40 billion in 2024, and went on to provide €50 billion. The majority of that came from European nations, while non-US NATO allies boosted wider defence spending by 20% in just the last year, so Europe is stepping up.
Finally, we saw a clear commitment to ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, using both military and economic tools. We all agree that 2025 will be the critical year for Ukraine. At this crucial moment, we will not step back, but step up our support for Ukraine. President Trump and President Zelensky have both spoken of their desire to achieve “peace through strength”. The commitments made yesterday provide the collective strength that we need to achieve peace. For our part, the UK will spend £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, which is more than ever before.
We have now provided more than 500,000 artillery shells, worth over £1.5 billion. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary announced that we will provide an additional £150 million of new firepower, including drones, tanks and air-to-air missiles. Ukraine’s security matters to global security. That is why the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group coalition of 50 nations and partners stretches from the Indo-Pacific to South America. This war was never about the fate of just one nation. When the border of one country is redrawn by force, it undermines the security of all nations.
The US is serious about stability in the Indo-Pacific, as are we. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the carrier strike group will go there next year. If aggression goes unchecked on one continent, it emboldens regimes on another, so on stepping up for Ukraine, we are, and we will. On stepping up for European security, we are, and we will.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder.
In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate.
We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator?
We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries.
Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?
Maria Eagle
I welcome the fact that, in the main, there is still consensus across this House on supporting Ukraine. That has been a tremendously important part of the support that we have given over the last three years, and before, to the Ukrainians.
The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine; my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made that clear in his remarks yesterday. NATO’s job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for any talks, but there can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine’s involvement. We want to see a durable peace and no return to conflict and aggression. That is the only way in which this war can end, with the kind of security that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have referred to.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We are all conscious of the three-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine at this time. However, there can be no peace without justice. It is therefore welcome that countries are collaborating to try to bring about a de-escalation of the war. What are the Government doing to focus on the justice system, to ensure that war criminals are tried, and justice is brought to the Ukrainian people?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that this has to be a just peace, and that those who have committed war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine need to be pursued for them.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Yesterday, the leader of my party warned the Prime Minister that we might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945. The hours since have confirmed our fears. This is a moment of great peril for us all. Does the Minister agree that the US’s actions are a betrayal of our Ukrainian friends, who have fought so hard for their freedom, of the UK, and of all our European allies? Will the Government step up and show British leadership, starting by passing urgent legislation to seize frozen Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine whatever the US does? Clearly, in the light of the events of the past 24 hours, the Government need to look again at defence spending. Does she agree that the decision of the previous Government to continue with a cut to the Army of 10,000 troops at a time when war is raging on our continent now looks utterly unforgivable?
Maria Eagle
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about being betrayed by our allies. The US Defence Secretary has made it clear that he that he wants a durable peace. That is what he and the President are proceeding to try to obtain, so I do not accept that point. In terms of our own forces, we are seeking to ensure that recruitment, which has failed to meet targets over the last number of years, is improved, so that the numbers in our armed forces are up to full strength.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and the additional support that the Government have announced. It is essential that the UK supports Ukraine, and that the annual £3 billion pledge continues. Does she agree that working alongside our allies is even more essential in these turbulent times to bring about an end to the war?
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that any such negotiations must involve Ukraine, and that the Ukrainians must be happy with the peace that is negotiated. Our role at present, while fierce fighting is still going on, is to put them in the strongest position that we can, in order to enable them properly to negotiate.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that in this new world, and in the event of any peace deal, the United Kingdom and its European allies must lead in providing Ukraine with military support and, potentially, military presence across land, air and sea, to give Ukraine confidence that any peace will endure? I assure the Government that they will have my support, if that is what they decide to do.
Maria Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, when he played a part in these matters he was in office, so he is very knowledgeable about them. I can confirm that we aim to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to enable it to negotiate. That involves continuing to supply the Ukrainians with the arms and weapons that they need in order to fight, because the fighting is still fierce. We need to step up and ensure that we do that. Certainly over the last period, the EU and European nations that are involved in the coalition to support Ukraine have given the majority of military aid and support. As the Secretary-General of NATO confirmed yesterday, 58% of the support that Ukraine received last year was from European nations, so European nations are stepping up. We must continue to do so.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments about Ukraine’s security being indivisible from global security. Does she agree that the UK must stand firm against those who believe that they can take land through aggression, and that we must continue to send a strong signal around the world that larger nations cannot just grab bits of smaller nations as and when they please?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. As I said in my initial response to the urgent question, it is important that we deter that kind of behaviour wherever it is seen around the world.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is quite clear from events of the past few hours that the Atlantic and the high north are of increasingly critical concern. Indeed, I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee that considered that in the previous Parliament. I know that the Government have had conversations with Denmark, but what conversations are they having with our other Joint Expeditionary Force partners to ensure that those forces are given the support and the resources that they need?
Maria Eagle
The Government have ongoing discussions with our partners in Europe and the high north.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this announcement should not affect the support of this House and the UK for Ukraine, and will she work with our armed forces and our defence industries to do everything possible to support Ukrainian forces on the frontline?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied.
Maria Eagle
No matter which side of the Chamber he is sitting on, the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of supporting deterrence—whether nuclear or short of that threshold—and he makes the same point again. The US Secretary of Defence made it clear in his remarks to the contact group that deterrence is important around the world, so I think there is agreement there.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of the new £150 million package of military firepower for Ukraine., including drones, tanks and air defence systems. How will that boost Ukrainian resilience and the UK defence sector?
Maria Eagle
It does both. There is only one way in which we can provide the Ukrainians with increasing amounts of munitions and drones, which are developing and changing rapidly, and that is by boosting the strength of our defence industries. That has the additional importance of enabling us to boost our capacity to deter any potential aggression, so in that sense we can do both, and we are doing so.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Viewed from Washington, the idea of carving up the map in Europe might look like a pragmatic deal, even if history tells us that that always ends badly. Surely we in Europe understand that no matter what we give Vladimir Putin, he will always want more. Is that the context in which the strategic defence review is being carried out, and does the Minister accept that this moment requires a fundamental reset of our relations with our European partners—not just in defence—and that we need to get real about the financial and economic implications?
Maria Eagle
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review is about identifying threats that we face now, rather than threats we perhaps faced before the Ukraine war began, so I can tell him that the review is being conducted with that in mind. On the deterrence that we need to be able to provide and the money we need to spend to provide it, the commitment is as it has been: as the Prime Minister has said, he will set out a path to 2.5% once the strategic defence review has been published, and we expect that to be in the spring.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
As the Minister will know from her many welcome visits, my constituency is home to many defence companies that are playing a vital role in this conflict. Does she agree that it is crucial that we continue to support companies here in the UK to get military kit into the hands of those in Ukraine who need it most?
Maria Eagle
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the pleasure of visiting her constituency on several occasions, and when it was her predecessor’s constituency as well, so I am well aware of the strength of its defence industrial base. We need to strengthen that base across our nations and regions, and we are doing that. That has the additional importance of providing deterrence for our nation as well as supporting Ukraine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister agree that this clarifies what the benchmark of success for the defence review must be? As some of the defence chiefs have been expressing, we must be ready, if necessary, to fight a war with Russia if we are to deter it and if we are to be in any position to guarantee the security of an independent and sovereign Ukraine after whatever is agreed between President Trump and President Putin.
Maria Eagle
I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%—
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the statement that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine. In that spirit, has the Minister or any of her colleagues had conversations with their counterparts in Ukraine following the recent developments to find out how they are feeling? If not, do they plan to soon?
Maria Eagle
I have not, but I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having discussions and, indeed, our discussions are ongoing and frequent. I have had contact with my counterpart in Ukraine, just not since yesterday.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Yesterday, no matter that we in this House wish it was not the case, the people of Ukraine were betrayed and the crimes of aggression and annexation were rewarded in a telephone call between Washington and Moscow. Right now, we have to be building closer partnerships with our European allies for whom democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law still actually mean something. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but how will the Government do that in the face of two men who believe that, because of their military superiority, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want?
Maria Eagle
The US Secretary of Defence made it clear yesterday that any peace negotiations that the Americans are involved in need to lead to a durable peace that does not see a resumption of the aggression that has led to this war, and we support that. We have also made it quite clear that these negotiations must involve Ukraine—of course they must. That is the way in which this war will finally end.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the commitment that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine, because if reports of the call between President Trump and Moscow are to be believed, this is less the art of the deal and more a charter for appeasement. Will we be working with NATO allies to establish a clear road map with defined timeframes for Ukraine’s NATO membership, ensuring long-term deterrence against inevitable further Russian aggression?
Maria Eagle
We have always said that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and our position is that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. However, we have also always been clear that the process will take time. I have already said quite clearly that the fate of Ukraine in these negotiations cannot be determined without Ukraine being fully involved, and that is our priority. At the moment, warfighting is still happening to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate from strength.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In 1994, Russia —along with the UK and the US—signed the Budapest memorandum, pledging to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Given Russia’s flagrant breach of that undertaking, why should Ukraine believe a word that Putin says without concrete security guarantees?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure the House that it is UK Government policy that not only must Ukraine be involved in a peace and in securing its territorial integrity, but it is only the Ukrainian people—not President Trump, nor President Putin—who can determine the destiny of Ukraine?
Maria Eagle
We have said that Ukraine must be involved in those negotiations, and that peace negotiations need two sides to come an agreement. It therefore clearly follows that the Ukrainians must be content with whatever the process comes up with. There must be security guarantees, and the peace must be durable—everybody agrees with that.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this
“was not a good war to go into”?
Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia?
Maria Eagle
We have made quite clear with our 100-year partnership with Ukraine that we back it in the long term. We have provided Ukraine with support from many parties across this Chamber over a number of years to ensure that it can continue its fight, and we will continue to support Ukraine during any negotiations that take place so that it can get the peace that it wishes to have.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister’s commitment to continued defence support for Ukraine is essential, and I am sure the House’s thoughts are with Ukrainians who are fighting for their freedoms and all the Ukrainians in our own communities who have found sanctuary in this country. Does she agree that any settlement cannot be a repeat of the Budapest memorandum or the Minsk agreements, which failed to deter future Russian imperial aggression?
Maria Eagle
I think everybody agrees that any peace that is negotiated must be durable. That will require security guarantees, given the past experience that the Ukrainians have of Russia and Russian aggression.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
As the Minister will be aware, much of the Russian war effort is being sustained by other nations, including several of the BRIC nations, which are supporting Russia through direct military aid or dual-use products. What is the Minister doing to try to deter the flow of arms that is continuing to sustain Russia?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman will know very well that there are sanctions, which we do our best to police, and they have had some impact. I think they have to continue both while the war is still ongoing and while the peace is being considered and negotiated.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
All wars end, but I know it is the feeling of Members across the House that we very much owe it to the men and women fighting for Ukraine that, when this war ends, it does so with Ukraine in a position of strength at the table and in the driving seat on the terms and timescales.
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to continue to support Ukraine to put it in the strongest possible position both while it is fighting the war and during any negotiations that take place.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could we take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost in this war—Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, Russian soldiers—and all the families who are mourning today?
Efforts were made earlier on by Latin American and African leaders and the Pope to try to negotiate an end to this war, and we may now have an opportunity to demonstrate that one country should never occupy another. Does the Minister believe that there is any possibility in the near future of a ceasefire, ahead of negotiations, that would be acceptable to the people of Ukraine as well as the rest of Europe, because we need to see an end to this ghastly conflict?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that conflicts such as this need to come to an end as soon as possible, so I acknowledge the point he makes about the death on all sides and how bad that is. However, I think it is important for any peace that may be negotiated to be durable and lasting, so we need to focus our minds at present on supporting Ukraine as much as we can so that it goes into any such negotiations in the strongest possible position.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Given Putin’s illegal invasion and declared intent, do the Government agree that any negotiations must result in a sovereign Ukraine, and that the UK will play its part in providing security guarantees that are meaningful, unlike those of the past, because that is crucial to securing a lasting peace?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Member is right that security guarantees are likely to be an important part of any peace agreement given the past history. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and we are committed to ensuring that it can defend its sovereign capability to continue to exist. While it is too early to talk about any details of what those security guarantees may be, we are committed to making sure that Ukraine can continue as an independent state.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On Monday, there will be a concert in Bath abbey in support of Ukraine. My constituents have been unstinting in their support for Ukrainians living among us, but also for Ukrainian communities such as in Oleksandriia. Now is not the point at which to weaken our support. How will the Government ensure that Ukraine’s voice is heard loud and clear in any peace talks, and that no European countries may potentially, or will ultimately, be bullied by US President Trump?
Maria Eagle
I agree very much with the hon. Lady when she says that our Ukrainian friends here in this nation have received a lot of support—not only in her constituency, but across the UK—from their friends and neighbours, and that that will continue. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. We have supported the Ukrainians through the toughest times of this war with arms and other necessary support, and we will continue to do so.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, as I do, the huge effort of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, of which a large proportion is in Scotland, particularly in and around my constituency. Given the huge efforts they have made, does she agree that we must not convey the idea in the coming weeks that we have in any way let them or their countrymen down?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with that, and we have no intention—I think in any part of this House—of doing so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker —I am surprised to be called so early.
Jim Shannon
No, no—I will grab the chance.
I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these concerns. It is clear that any peace that is negotiated, which must have the consent of the Ukrainians themselves, has to be durable, and to the extent that that requires security guarantees, those have to be present for it to work.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to prepare. The strategic defence review will set out the threats that we face and we will then turn our attention to making sure we obtain the capabilities to deal with them. Obviously we will look at any weaknesses there might be and try to shore them up.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Every time President Trump makes a statement about Ukraine I hear from constituents that they are terrified for the future of Ukraine, and never more so than in the last 24 hours. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government were consulted on or told about President Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin beforehand?
Maria Eagle
I am afraid it is above my pay grade to know the answer to that question, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to ask those whose pay grade it is not above at another questions session. As far as I am aware we have had friendly conversations at the Ukraine defence contact group with members of the US Administration.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What practical help are the Government providing to Ukraine’s legal system and judges to ensure the prosecution of war crimes?
Maria Eagle
We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which has been signed. That will be supporting it in any way it feels it needs support that we might be able to offer. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question today about what help we have given, but I am absolutely certain that if Ukraine asks us for help and it is considered that our legal profession is able to supply it, we will think about doing so.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the Minister not agree that the lesson to draw from this is the importance of military strength, working with all our NATO and European allies, but critically being able to stand on our own two feet militarily? We need to see defence spending as investment, and in that light does she wish we were not giving however many billions of pounds it is to Mauritius and that we could invest that money in our defences instead?
Maria Eagle
We have a commitment to getting our defence spending back to 2.5% of GDP, and the last time it was at that level was at the time of the last Labour Government.
Business of the House
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 24 February includes:
Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 25 February—Second Reading of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 26 February—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 27 February—General debate on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St David’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 3 March will include:
Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 4 March—All stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.
Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (1st allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman
Like some of our leading podcasters, we love a storm cloud or two in business questions. Sure enough, the poor Government have been desperately hoping that recent events in America would drive the storm clouds away from the UK economy. Even though the news from Washington DC has been startling, to say the least, it has not been enough to dispel yet another week of adverse economic headlines. Both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have reportedly downgraded their growth forecasts, the latter cutting its by half, to a measly 0.75% for the year. So much for the Chancellor’s much-vaunted dash for growth.
Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reported that “zero fiscal headroom remains” to deal with any shocks, in the same week that President Trump has announced 25% tariffs on steel. It is easy to see what has happened here: Labour never expected President Trump to win. It sent a team over to campaign for his opponent. The Government passed an anti-growth Budget, and they did not build enough leeway into their financial planning. Indeed, the Chancellor promised no new taxes or spending. Now we are having to live with the consequences.
It was also hard to miss the continuing controversy that the Attorney General is creating, and harder still not to notice the extremely critical words of his Labour colleague, Lord Glasman. I do not propose to repeat those words here, but they point to two issues that demand this House’s full and proper attention. In both cases, the concern is not over the legal positions taken by the Attorney General as such, but the contradictions that they offer to the rest of Government policy. People can agree or disagree about the policy, but the contradictions cannot be fudged. They cannot be blamed on others, and they require explanation.
The first contradiction is in relation to international law. On 3 February, the Attorney General told the Council of Europe that the Government would
“never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court”.
In doing so, he was simply restating settled UK policy for many decades, a fact that he somehow neglected to mention. The difficulty arises, however, because the Government’s new legislation on small boats appears to retain a measure banning migrants from claiming protections under the modern slavery laws. That is a ban that the Prime Minister went out of his way to denounce when it was first introduced in 2023. In his words:
“It is a crying shame that…we face legislation that drives a coach and horses through our world-leading modern slavery framework, which protects women from exploitation.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 295.]
That is quite a U-turn. You see the deeper problem, Mr Speaker. Which is it to be: will the Government abide by international law in this instance and protect women from exploitation, as the Prime Minister said, or will they reverse his newly adopted position in support of the ban?
The second problem relates to domestic law. Last November, the Attorney General strengthened his official guidance to Government lawyers on possible legal risk. He specifically cautioned against offering legal support for policies that have only a tenable case. Elsewhere, he has pledged to restore checks on Executive—that is, Government—action. This comes at a time when the Prime Minister has specifically pledged to end vexatious litigation while building a huge amount of new housing and infrastructure. You see the problem, Mr Speaker. It was the problem that the noble Lord Glasman was pointing out when he praised the rule of law, but not of lawyers. This edict will have a chilling effect on what I think we can already agree is pretty sluggish decision making by Ministers.
Will the Government now take less legal risk, as the Attorney General requires? Will their lawyers now require Ministers to act only when they can defeat a legal challenge, or will they curb the judicial reviews and other legal cases that will otherwise inevitably disrupt their building plans? I do not expect the Leader of the House to tell us how the Government plan to resolve those obvious problems today, but the House would be grateful for a debate in Government time on what on earth the Government’s approach will be to resolving them.
Lucy Powell
May I first update the House on the work of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair? We established the Committee to rebuild trust in politics, raise standards, improve culture and make Parliament more effective. In recent years, the role of an MP has changed significantly, with many more demands and expectations in the constituency. The make-up of the Commons has changed a great deal too; many more parties are represented and Members better reflect the country we serve. So how we do things needs to change, too. I thank all of those who contributed to our wide-ranging call for views.
Work is already under way, with the Standards Committee’s inquiry on Members’ outside employment and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on proxy votes and call lists. Today, we have set out three further areas for consideration: improving accessibility; ensuring that the Chamber remains the crucible of national debate; and how we can provide more certainty on parliamentary business.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points and gave a list of economic statistics. I might give him some alternative ones, if I may. Inflation is down, mortgage rates are coming down, wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years, business investment is at the highest level for 19 years, and the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both saying that Britain will be Europe’s fastest growing major economy in coming years. He supported the former Prime Minister —not the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is in his place, but the one who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates flying and inflation to record highs—so I will not take lectures from him.
Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman raised the Attorney General. Quite honestly, the way in which the Conservatives and their friends in the right-wing media are trying to undermine the Attorney General is pathetic. They were once the party of law and order, and now they seek to undermine law and order at every turn. As someone who works closely with the Attorney General, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is an asset to the Government and a formidable partner in our attempts to restore integrity to how we make and implement laws in this country. The Conservatives’ laws did not fit that remit, and that is why in many cases they never got off the ground. They were challenged time and again in the courts, wasting everyone’s time and money and not delivering the outcomes that they wanted. We will not take lectures from them on that.
The shadow Leader of the House did not want to talk about the substance of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we debated this week. That is because the previous Government lost control of our borders: net migration rose to a record high of almost 1 million in their last year in office, and small boat crossings increased by one hundredfold. To be fair to him, he knew that the Rwanda plan was a gimmick and would not work—he said as much when he resigned as a Minister—but I am at a loss as to why he and Conservative Front Benchers voted against giving the Border Security Command new counter-terrorism powers and other measures. They are chasing the tail of Reform so much that they are going around in dizzying circles, leaving the incredible sight of the modern Conservative party voting against strengthening our borders.
I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take up my invitation last week to celebrate the Leader of the Opposition’s first 100 days in office. Earlier this week, however, he did mark the anniversary of another leader being elected. Those were the days, weren’t they? Back then, the Tory party knew what it stood for—back when it was a serious party and represented large parts of the country. I am not sure Margaret Thatcher would even recognise the Conservative party today. It is no wonder the Conservatives herald and respect their former leaders far more than their current leader. Let us be honest: like their current leader, their party is a shadow of its former self.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Women’s centres provide vital support for women facing issues including isolation, domestic abuse, health problems and navigating the social security system, among a wide range of other support. I recently visited Stockport Women’s Centre and want to place on the record my thanks to all the staff and volunteers there who support women from across Stockport. Can we have a debate in Government time on the enormous contribution of organisations that support women in our society, in particular women’s centres across England, and on how to secure the essential funding they need to continue their important work?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the women’s refuge in Stockport on the work it does. He will know that this Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls and that we want to halve those statistics over the next 10 years. That is a huge ambition and will take detailed and committed work, which I know he will join us in doing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
As we now know, local government is being reorganised, and the Labour Government have cancelled local elections while affected councils work out how on earth they will reorganise themselves. Like many residents in these areas, I would have hoped that that plan would have been in place before the elections were cancelled; many issues are very much up in the air, and the public deserve to know what they are in for.
In Woking, for example, successive Conservative administrations at the council racked up £2 billion of debt with absolutely no plan for how to pay it off. In Greater Essex, Conservative-run Thurrock ran up debts of around £1.5 billion largely due to investments in a solar farm that did not exist. With both Essex and Surrey now on the fast track for local government reorganisation, what will happen to those debts?
Last week, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote a letter to all the leaders of the two-tier councils and unitary authorities in Essex, in which he said:
“there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation…proposals should reflect the extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally.”
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come forward with a statement to confirm that what he really means is that residents across places such as Essex and Surrey will be forced to pay for the incompetence of previous Tory administrations of other councils, and that they are likely to see reduced services and higher council tax bills simply because this Labour Government are determined to press ahead with local government reorganisation but not prepared to offer any financial support to alleviate that?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises the important issue of local government finances, and she is right to identify the mess those finances were left in by the previous Government. Many councils had to spend their reserves on statutory services, which is not what they are intended for. We saw council after council going bust month after month under the previous Government, and many more were left in severe debt, like the ones she has described.
We have given local government a significant settlement this year, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We need to fix the long-term problems; we need multi-year settlements. I know the transition will be difficult, but the devolution revolution—giving local areas more say and more powers over how they spend and raise their revenue—will, in time, lead to more secure and sustainable funding for local government. I will ensure the relevant Minister comes to this House with regular updates.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
At the stroke of a pen, Tory-led Northumberland county council is about to wipe 9,000 people off the county’s housing waiting list. My office is beset by constituents in desperate need of secure and affordable accommodation, but even those in the highest priority bandings are often unable to get the housing they need. This is a simple, callous attempt to massage the huge housing list rather than deal with the issue. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to ensure that those in need of decent, affordable housing are not easily cast aside and thrown on to the scrap heap, as in the case of Northumberland county council?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about what has happened with Northumberland county council and its housing waiting list. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify that waiting lists are far too high and that many people are in desperate need of affordable, social or council housing. That is why the Government are really committed to not just building 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament, but ensuring that we have very many more council houses, affordable houses and social houses. We announced further plans on that this week, and I will ensure that Ministers are accountable on these matters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I remind the House that the Backbench Business Committee is taking applications for estimates day debates on 5 March, and that applications close a week tomorrow. We will then consider the applications for debates—we understand that there may be several—at our meeting on 25 February.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, on 6 March there will be a debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on political finance rules. On Thursday 13 March, if we are given the time, there will be a debate on the future of farming, followed by a debate on knife crime among children and young people. On a rough calculation, with the queue of applications we have for the Chamber, we have enough business to allocate until the end of June, provided we are given every single available Thursday.
In Westminster Hall when we come back, on Tuesday 25 February there will be a debate on maternity services, followed on the Thursday by a debate on rural crime and a debate on women’s health. I will leave the other business for when we come back.
On Sunday 23 February, when we are due to come back after recess, the renowned hate preacher Mohamed Hoblos is due to speak in this country. He has been banned in Germany and Holland. The shadow Home Secretary has written to the Home Secretary asking that he be banned from this country. Given that antisemitism is at its highest peak ever and that anti-Muslim hatred is at a peak, it is clear that the last thing we want is someone coming along stirring up racial and religious hatred. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to encourage the Home Secretary to issue a banning order to prevent this man from coming to this country?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I am sure he will understand that I cannot guarantee him every Thursday between now and the end of June, but we have been allocating Backbench Business debates regularly and often, and hopefully they will be filled in the usual way. I am really glad to hear about the debate on International Women’s Day, which he and I have discussed. I will let colleagues know about this more formally, but we are hoping to arrange to get all the women Members of the House together for a photo in the Chamber to mark International Women’s Day.
Lucy Powell
Sorry, Mr Speaker. That is why I am not formally announcing it, but saying that we are hoping to. I am gently lobbying for it through your good offices, thank you very much indeed.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raises a serious matter, as he often does, about how we tackle antisemitism and hate speech, and how we take action to ensure that those who are spreading hate and antisemitism are prevented from doing so. I shall certainly raise the matter with the Home Secretary and make sure that he gets a full response.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
This week I was visited by some constituents as part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews parliamentary advocacy day. We talked about how great our local multi-faith forum is, and it was suggested that we should have a British-Jewish culture month to celebrate all the multicultural elements and diversity in the Jewish community. One constituent said to me, “You could have two Jewish people in the room and three different opinions.” Would it not be wonderful if we could have that culture month, and could we perhaps spend some Government time discussing it?
Lucy Powell
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had such a good meeting with the Board of Deputies, and I thank her for all the work that she does—along with other Members on both sides of the House—to organise multi-faith gatherings and bring people together. She is right to refer to the fantastic contribution that the Jewish community have long made, and continue to make, at the heart of our country, and I am sure that others will support her call for a British-Jewish culture month.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Last week I met two of my constituents, Mark Farrow and Stephen White, who volunteer for the Driving Ukraine charity, which takes modified vehicles to Ukraine to serve as ambulances and for other humanitarian purposes. Later this month, they will take one more vehicle out, funded by generous donations from local people. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending their efforts, as well as the charitable contributions made by so many across our country in support of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people? May I also thank her for giving us an opportunity to commemorate their efforts during the week following the recess?
Lucy Powell
Let me take this opportunity to pay my respects to the right hon. Gentleman. The way in which he has conducted himself since leaving office and remained here as a parliamentarian, active on behalf of his constituents, provides a model for others to follow. I do, of course, join him in commending Mark and Steve for the work that they do. The whole House wants to support Ukraine and, indeed, we have continued to do so, as have many of our constituents in a range of ways. I am very pleased that we will have that debate when we return.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rugby football league, I will start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and congratulating you on your recent term as president of the Rugby Football League. You have always been a great champion of the greatest game, and I thank you for that. I am sure you are as excited as I am that the season is under way and the super league kicks off tonight.
This year, rugby league celebrates its 130th anniversary. In all that time, no representative of the sport has ever received the highest honour of a knighthood or damehood, although there have been many worthy candidates for those honours and recipients of others, including Billy Boston, Alex Murphy and Kevin Sinfield. Does the Leader of the House share my dismay, frustration and surprise at this oversight? Can she advise me on how best to raise it, and who with, to ensure that our great game and some of the outstanding individuals who represent it receive the recognition that they deserve?
Lucy Powell
I certainly recognise the issue that my hon. Friend has raised, and I know that you, Mr Speaker, will share some of his views. I am not speaking for you, of course, but I know that we all want to recognise the valuable contribution that rugby league makes to our communities and our country.
It is indeed a surprise that rugby league players have not been honoured in the way that others have. As my hon. Friend will know, I cannot comment on the right of individuals to be awarded honours, but I too think that Kevin Sinfield has been an incredible ambassador not just for sport but for charitable fundraising, and he is definitely someone I think we should all consider. I shall ensure that the powers that be have heard my hon. Friend’s comments, and I will help him to make representations.
Mr Speaker
Let me just say, as I have been tempted into the conversation, that I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister, because there is a major injustice in the stigma attached to rugby league and the fact that not one player has ever been knighted. Given that Kevin Sinfield has raised millions for motor neurone disease charities, I should have thought that now is the time and we should wait no longer.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On Monday, the Home Office published updated guidance that seems to prevent anyone from being granted citizenship if they have come to this country through a dangerous journey, despite the fact that for the vast majority of those seeking refuge, there are no safe and legal routes available. Can we have a debate in Government time on this deeply misjudged policy, and in particular on the call from a former Home Secretary to the current Home Secretary to consider very carefully its implications?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter. She will be aware that there are long-standing rules that prevent those who arrive illegally in this country from being granted citizenship. We have strengthened those rules in a small way for those who arrive on small boats, so that they also will not be able to become British citizens. It is important that we take away some of the pull factors that bring people to this country and that we take tough action to control our borders. She makes a very important point about safe routes, which I know the Home Secretary has been taking action on and updates the House on regularly, but I will ensure she continues to do so.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been in Committee this week, slightly delayed, and for good reason, because it is obviously a very important issue to debate. Can she confirm whether the Government will still wait until the end of the Committee stage before publishing the impact assessment on the Bill?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right: the Bill has gone into line-by-line consideration in Committee this week. She will be aware that it is a private Member’s Bill and that the Government remain neutral on the issue, as it is a matter of conscience, but the Government have been clear that we will work with the Committee—indeed, there are Ministers on the Committee—to ensure that the Bill is workable and operable, and any such assessments will be made available in due course.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This week is Wear it Red week, an opportunity to show our support for the amazing work of the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity. My question to the Leader of the House—as it is the week before recess, I am being gentle on her—is, will she join me in congratulating and thanking the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity for the amazing work it does in support of my constituents, the wider midlands and our NHS?
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Lady for being gentle on me—I do not mind her being robust with me either; that is what the job is all about, and I am here for that. I will absolutely join her in congratulating the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity on the critical work it does, often in a voluntary capacity. Had I known it was Wear it Red week, I would have worn one of my red outfits—maybe next time she will let me know.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last week was a big one for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. On Tuesday, Mayor Ros Jones announced that Munich Airport International will provide operational and management services for Doncaster Sheffield airport upon its reopening. Then on Thursday, the Chancellor visited Yorkshire wildlife park—it is amazing; come and see it—with Dan Fell and businesses from the chamber of commerce to discuss, among other things, her support for the reopening of the airport. With National Apprenticeship Week currently taking place, it is vital that investment in projects such as this creates skilled jobs in the area. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of creating skilled jobs across the UK, and will she support me and other local MPs as we work with businesses to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities are in place when our airport reopens?
Lucy Powell
Once again, my hon. Friend lives up to the name I have given him: Mr Doncaster Airport. I am pleased to hear that preparations have moved a step closer for flights coming into Doncaster again. He raises the importance of a project such as Doncaster airport being about not just transport connectivity but bringing jobs and opportunity for young people in the community. I commend him for his work.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I shall try to avoid the temptation to say that when the Leader of the House, in her upbeat way, describes the Attorney General as an asset, we can all agree at least on the first syllable, and instead ask for a debate on—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It took a while! Instead, I will ask for a debate on trends in defence spending during and after the cold war, so that those on both sides of the House have the chance to appreciate that when we are involved in a serious confrontation, we should not be arguing about 2.5%; we should be arguing for a figure much nearer to the 5% that President Trump, for once, is right to demand.
Lucy Powell
I will ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to say anything other than I absolutely stand by my comment that the Attorney General is a fantastic asset for this Government, and we are lucky to have him working with us.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are absolutely committed to working towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but he is right to point out that defence spending has been too low to meet our country’s strategic needs. He will also know that the last time Government spending on defence reached 2.5% of GDP was under the last Labour Government. It never reached that level under his party.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Could we have a debate on Thames Water, which provides water disservices to 20 million people in this country? We now know that the company received from bill payers money that was supposed to be spent on environmental measures such as stopping illegal discharges, and that that money has been used to pay bonuses and dividends. We need to discuss whether the people running Thames Water are fit and proper persons to run a public company.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the way our water industry has been run over recent years is absolutely shocking, with shareholder dividends being paid out over and above infrastructure spending and addressing discharges and other things in our waterways. It is absolutely shocking, which is why this Government have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is about to receive Royal Assent and will stop erroneous bonuses. We have established a new Independent Water Commission, and there are further reforms coming, but I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The main road through my constituency of Woking has been closed for the fourth time in short succession following cladding falling off a hotel. Cladding fell off it during construction, and has fallen off it since it opened. The developer, Sir Robert McAlpine, is responsible and seems to be in no rush to fix this problem. Will the Leader of the House please agree to hold a debate on the responsibility of developers? If companies prove that they cannot deliver, they should lose the right to work for the public sector.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the cladding scandal is a shocking embarrassment for our country, and we still have some way to go in putting that right. The Government set out a remediation action plan just before Christmas—that is on top of the Building Safety Act 2022, which was passed under the previous Government—but we absolutely need to be able to hold freeholders and developers to account when they put dangerous cladding on buildings and refuse to replace it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Belfrey in York is losing around £1.4 million through the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme. The National Railway Museum was promised money by the last Government—I appreciate that it was not necessarily real money—but that has been taken away. Both those projects are midway through development. Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Chancellor to say that when projects are under way but have been stripped down after development has started, money should be put in place to ensure that they can be completed?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear what is happening to the Belfrey in York. My hon. Friend will know that we have had to look at making some changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, but I will certainly ensure that her particular—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) says that the scheme has been cut. In fact, the previous scheme, like many others run by the previous Government, was a work of fiction, and there was not the funding that people thought was there. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a full reply about the particular case that she raises.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Those who have recently visited the Fylde coast will have seen lots of volunteers burying Christmas trees in the sand, and I am sure Mr Speaker will back me up by confirming that this is not a strange Lancashire tradition. It is actually a fantastic wildlife trust project to vastly extend the sand dunes, which are vital for nature and Fylde’s flood defences. Over the years, more than 11,000 Christmas trees have been buried to help rebuild the sand dunes, 80% of which have been lost over the last 150 years. The project has seen 6 hectares of dunes completely replenished.
The Deputy Prime Minister recently agreed to nip up the road to Fylde to have a pint with me to discuss an issue, so could I tempt the Leader of the House with an ice cream, to come for a walk with me on St Anne’s beach to see this project, to meet some of the fantastic people who have put in more than 10,500 hours of volunteering, and to discuss coastal life?
Lucy Powell
I have many happy memories of rolling down the sand dunes in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as a child—and as an adult, but the less said about that the better.
I had heard about the project to restore the dunes, but I had not appreciated that so many Christmas trees were being buried. I am always happy to accept such a lovely invitation, but perhaps we can wait until the weather is a bit nicer.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am sorry that I forgot to wear red today.
If we are to meet net zero, we need to address the CO2 emissions from our housing stock. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe, and it accounts for 17% of our CO2 emissions. As I understand it, one issue is that houses in conservation areas and grade II properties cannot be changed to double glazing or secondary glazing. Can we have a debate on the hundreds of thousands of affected homes across this country? These households want to do the right thing for this country by reducing their CO2 emissions, and they want to reduce their bills. That means changing their glazing—it is as simple as that—so we need to change our planning legislation.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The warm homes scheme and the other measures that the Government are introducing are vital to reducing our demand for energy, as well as reducing people’s bills.
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and there is always a balance to be struck between keeping people’s homes warm and their bills down, while retaining heritage and other matters. He is right to raise this point, and I will ensure that he gets a full response.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I strongly support the request of the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for a statement on Thames Water. This company pays out its huge profits to shareholders and executives, presides over leaks across the region and pollutes our seas and rivers. To me, it is an example of the disaster of privatising the water industry.
We need a clear statement from the Government that, instead of regulation, they will return Thames Water to public ownership so that the people of London and the whole region can enjoy clean water, and so that our seas will no longer be polluted.
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there have been severe problems, which have let everybody down. The problems, which stem from severe failures in the governance and regulation that underpin the water sector, are completely unacceptable. We passed the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will shortly receive Royal Assent, to stop these erroneous bonuses being paid for poor performance. We will soon be introducing wider water reform, and the measures are currently under review. I will ensure that the House is updated and that the right hon. Gentleman’s opinions are included.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
This week, the UK Government announced positive changes to apprenticeships that will cut red tape and increase collaboration between businesses and skills providers, setting more young people on a path to successful careers. In Scotland, by contrast, the last two years have seen delays and freezes on modern apprenticeships, harming people in my constituency and across Scotland. Does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP should follow the lead set by this UK Labour Government and take radical action to support the next generation of the workforce?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Let us be honest: the Scottish Government have failed on apprenticeships, with a 10-year decline in apprenticeship starts and numbers. This new Labour Government are absolutely determined to turn around the problems we have seen with apprenticeships in England and elsewhere. That is why we are unlocking 10,000 new apprenticeship starts this week with some of our changes. The Scottish Government should follow our lead and ensure that young people in Scotland get the opportunities they deserve.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I would like the Leader of the House to be made aware that the residents of the Oldchurch estate in Romford have been terribly let down by Sanctuary housing association for months on end, with long delays to urgent repairs leaving residents suffering without heating or hot water throughout winter, as well as malfunctioning lifts rendering disabled residents prisoners in their own homes. As she will know, section 11 of the Housing Act 2004 mandates landlords to carry out essential repairs within a reasonable timeframe, but that is often not enforced in practice, leaving constituents such as mine living in unacceptably poor conditions. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to make a statement on that frightful situation and take urgent action to get such a heartbreaking matter resolved as quickly as possible for my constituents?
Lucy Powell
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that on behalf of his constituents? I am sure it is something that many of us across the House are familiar with. I am really sorry to hear of the poor service and the poor state of repair of houses provided by Sanctuary in his constituency. He will know that that is one reason the Government want to strengthen the rights of renters, whether they be in social or private housing. We are currently taking the Renters’ Rights Bill through both Houses, which will give those living in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency even more rights to ensure that they live in a decent, well-maintained and safe home.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that I and many new Members have been grateful over the last seven months for your guidance and for the support from your teams in helping us get to grips with the rules and procedures of this place, which I know the Leader of the House is committed to ensuring are upheld and respected at all times. I imagine that my right hon. Friend therefore shares my concern that last night’s political broadcast from the Conservative party not only extensively featured the use of a taxpayer-funded ministerial car, but was filmed in part on the parliamentary estate in Speaker’s Court, in direct contravention, as I understand it, of the rules of this House. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the matter is fully investigated?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which has very recently come to light. She is absolutely right; that is against protocol. It is against the protocol of this House to speak without permission, particularly in Speaker’s Court. If the Leader of the Opposition is hearing this today, she should offer Mr Speaker a full and speedy apology. Also, we have high standards that we are all judged by and using ministerial and publicly paid-for cars for party political campaigning purposes is not allowed—and rightly so, because our constituents would not expect that to be the case. I hope the Leader of the Opposition has heard my hon. Friend’s question today and takes action to put that right.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
With grateful thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, I am leading a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on HIV Testing Week. The all-party parliamentary group on HIV, Aids and sexual health is keen to highlight the week and very much welcomes the test taken by the Prime Minister as part of highlighting that facility. In poorer countries, however, tests and treatment are only available thanks to the resources from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Given the uncertainty of funding from the United States, can the Leader of the House ensure that a statement comes forward about the UK’s approach to the replenishment of the Global Fund? This time around, the UK’s leadership will be vital if the fund is to be sustained.
Lucy Powell
First, let me say that I have brought up with Ministers the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised with me last week about the Hughes report. I hope that he and I will get a full reply on that. He yet again raises an important matter, and I congratulate him on securing a Westminster Hall debate on it this afternoon. HIV testing is very important. I was so proud that ours was the first Prime Minister to take a public HIV test; that will encourage others to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is our mission to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. He raises important matters to do with the Global Fund. We support funding for it, and I will ensure that he is updated on how we will continue with that.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on semiconductors, it was a pleasure to join colleagues in welcoming academics, industrialists, researchers and manufacturers to a reception in the Palace this week to celebrate semiconductors. The UK has very real strength in this area. Our research base is the best in the world. Our manufacturing base, too, is world-beating, and we have semiconductor clusters across the UK, securing us high-quality employment in the compound semiconductor field. However, at the event, we were told that the industrial strategy mentions semiconductors only once. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers are aware that a reliable supply chain for the high-quality semiconductor industry is important for our drive to become more self-sufficient in green energy, defence and other sectors, and for our growth agenda?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the vital role for semiconductors in future technologies and in our current industry. We are a world leader in this space, particularly in his region. Semiconductors are covered in our industrial strategy; we have a new one for the first time in many years, and academia, business and others rightly welcome it. This is also about our economic security—making sure that we have these home-grown technologies and all that is needed to support them. I will ensure that he gets a full reply.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
This year marks the 160th anniversary of Ilkley train station, a vital transport link for my town. I am delighted to say that Steven Thornton—I met him again just last Saturday—and his wider team at the Friends Of Ilkley Rail Station are pressing ahead with developing a business case for improving interconnectivity between the train station and the buses that pick up from the adjoining street. This will improve accessibility and make the station a more inviting and user-friendly place for all. They are also trying to get toilets at Ilkley train station. Can we have a debate in Government time on how Government can support these vital projects in getting off the ground?
Lucy Powell
May I join the hon. Member in congratulating the Friends of Ilkley Train Station on all that they are doing to improve the experience for train users? The interchange with local buses is absolutely vital. I strongly support the provision of public toilets—lack of toilets is a particular bugbear of mine. This Government are taking great steps to ensure access for all on our transport network, including at Ilkley train station.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
My constituents in North Durham have endured months of inadequate services by Go North East. There have been widespread and last-minute bus cancellations, resulting in people missing school, work and health appointments. This issue is raised with me more than anything else at the moment. Can we have a debate in Government time about the reliability of bus services and the measures in place for holding operators to account for such poor service?
Lucy Powell
Affordable, reliable, local bus services are of great importance to all our constituents, and clearly to my hon. Friend’s constituents as well. I am sorry to hear of the poor service that they have received. This Government are absolutely committed to delivering more reliable, affordable buses. We have brought forward the Bus Services (No.2) Bill, which, hopefully, will come before the House soon, and we have put in an extra £1 billion of investment. That is only the start. We really need to ensure that communities like my hon. Friend’s are better served with better buses.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow time for us to debate the importance of small businesses to the rural economy? The annual Countryside Alliance awards celebrate rural businesses, communities and individuals who make significant contributions to the countryside. This year, I am delighted to report that there are four finalists from the Scottish Borders: the Gordon Arms, the Allanton Inn, Scott’s of Kelso, and Andersen & Sondergaard Wild Game Charcuterie. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses on reaching the final, and agree that this is yet another fantastic reason to visit the Scottish Borders?
Lucy Powell
This is becoming a weekly occurrence, but I have to say that today’s offer of an invitation is one that I really could take up. Visiting the hospitality businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that have made the final of the Countryside Alliance awards would be fantastic. I congratulate them on getting so far.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
This week, Pub Aid announced the finalists of the community pub hero awards. There were more than 1,000 entries, and I am over the moon to be able to say that the Bird in Hand pub in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages is one of the 31 finalists. It is an incredible venue that does so much for the community in Stafford, and particularly for the Royal British Legion. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of pubs to their local communities, and will she visit the Bird in Hand with me when she next comes to Stafford?
Lucy Powell
I am getting a lot of invitations to pubs today. I have become a complete lightweight, so I am generally on zero-alcohol beer these days, but the Bird in Hand in Stafford sounds like a great hospitality venue. I congratulate it on being shortlisted. Pubs really are at the heart of our communities; they provide great fare and great company, and are a warm place for many people in these winter months. I think my hon. Friend might be inviting me to her constituency soon anyway; I am sure that we can pay a visit to the Bird in Hand soon.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for the help of her office, please? The Government have produced an elective reform plan, a key plank of which is having 10 direct-to-test pathways. I have written two parliamentary questions to find out what is being considered, and have been told that 10 pathways are under consideration. I raised the matter with the Health Secretary directly this week. He answered:
“If he wants to do a pop quiz, he can use Google.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 155.]
Google says that plans for 10 pathways are being considered. Here is why it matters: the plan had one example that was found to be unsafe, was met with outcry from doctors, and has been removed. How can this House and the public hold the Government to account if we do not get answers to questions? I know that the Health Secretary has been under a lot of pressure. He has lost a Health Minister, and Prime Minister Llama—I mean Starmer—has produced a new one, but that is no excuse for the Health Secretary not being across the detail. Will the Leader of the House kindly write to him to ask what 10 tests are being considered, so that we can scrutinise them properly in this House?
Lucy Powell
I think I will swerve the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to make a party political point, because it is really not becoming of him on this occasion. He raises a serious matter, and he knows that I take very seriously the issue of parliamentary questions being answered in a timely and forthcoming way, with the information that the Member of Parliament is asking for actually provided in the answer. If that has not happened in this case, I will absolutely take that up with the Health Secretary and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the full reply that he needs.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago at my surgery in Wortley, I met a resident who had been waiting 26 weeks for a hip operation. Sadly, he had just found out that he had at least another 40 weeks to wait. During our meeting, it was clear that he was in pain. He was on strong medication, but his eyes watered every time he made any sort of movement that involved his hip. I am proud to be part of a Government who have put so much money into the NHS to bring waiting lists down, but given my constituent’s situation, and that of many people like him, please can we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to spend that money and get waiting lists down as quickly as possible?
Lucy Powell
The figures are shocking: over 7 million people are, like my hon. Friend’s constituent, on NHS waiting lists. Behind every single one of them is a story like the one he describes—someone in pain, someone debilitated, someone unable to work or get on with their life. That is why getting the waiting lists down is one of the Government’s first priorities. We have set an elective reform plan, and we want to hit the 18-week referral target by the end of this Parliament. That is incredibly ambitious. I hope that, thanks to those ambitious plans, his constituent gets the hip replacement that he desperately needs.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Ben and Amy Branson are my constituents. Their daughter Bethany was 19 when she was killed by a drunk driver on 8 November 2022. The driver crashed his van into a car and fled the scene, before skipping a red light and crashing a second time into several cars, one of which was carrying Bethany. At the scene of his arrest, the driver admitted guilt and said:
“I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what, I will get three, four, five years. Hopefully I killed them.”
Despite his admission of guilt at the scene and there being no doubt as to his crime, he was still entitled to a one third reduction in his sentence as a result of his guilty plea, so 15 years were reduced to 10 years, and with good behaviour he could serve as little as six years and eight months in prison. Bethany’s family do not believe that that reflects the severity and heartbreak of his crime. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on sentencing policy?
Lucy Powell
My heart goes out to Bethany’s family. What a heartbreaking and appalling case. Every single one of us can relate to what an awful tragedy that is for the family, and how it is made worse by what seems to be a shocking injustice in how the offender was sentenced. The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters were raised many times in previous Parliaments, which strengthened sentencing, but perhaps we need to go further. A sentencing review is taking place, and the House will be updated on that. There will be further legislation, and he could raise these matters further during proceedings on it. We need to do more to reduce tragic deaths like the one that he describes, and to deter people from drink-driving and dangerous driving.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
My constituents are incredibly proud of our non-league football club, Redditch United. Led by chairman Dave Faulkner, the Valley stadium hosts thousands of young boys and girls playing football, hosts learners with special educational needs and disabilities, and is a hub for local businesses. Recently the club even secured a kit sponsorship with the Reddit r/football community. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how the Government can support non-league football clubs, which are so often the beating heart of local communities?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those at Redditch United on all their work. Grassroots sport and non-league football clubs are at the heart of our communities and what we do. The Football Governance Bill will come to this House from the Lords very soon. I am sure that will be a great opportunity for him to mention the important work that Redditch United does.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Year 4 pupils from Burnside primary school in Cramlington recently got in touch with me. In their geography lessons, they have been studying our local rivers and waterways, and they are really concerned about pollution and the difficulties created by the poor treatment of those waterways. May we have a debate on the Government’s action to address those pupils’ concerns by cleaning up our rivers, seas and waterways?
Lucy Powell
I know that young people, including those at Burnside school, are incredibly worried about our waterways. The pollution in our rivers and seas is absolutely unacceptable. This Government are cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government. Through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, we are taking tough action against water companies for discharge and pollution. Further measures will come soon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We have started the Prisoner of Conscience scheme, in collaboration with ADF International. I wish to highlight the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a musician and follower of Sufi Islamic beliefs who was arrested and sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2022. In January 2021, a higher court in Kano state overturned Sharif-Aminu’s conviction. Despite that, he remains in prison and faces a retrial under laws that violate both the Nigerian constitution and international human rights standards. Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy and a key UK trade partner, so will the right hon. Lady raise with her Cabinet colleagues the potential economic and business implications for international companies operating in northern Nigeria if the Supreme Court there upholds the constitutionality of blasphemy laws, and the impact that might have on investor confidence, corporate social responsibility commitments and long-term business stability?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know, I am sure, that the UK Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, including in the case that he raises. The right of individuals to express their belief or non-belief is essential to a free and open society. We have raised, and will continue to raise, those matters with the Nigerian Government. I thank him for raising them today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next Member, I remind the House that we need to finish in the next 15 or 20 minutes, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions short—as would their colleagues.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The recent news of the loss of three bank branches in my constituency further illustrates the crisis facing communities, including in the Tyne valley, of growing banking deserts. May we have a debate in Government time about the need for access to cash, not only for older people but for those starting businesses, those purchasing houses and those who need to access face-to-face banking services, to promote growth in rural areas?
Lucy Powell
Protecting vital banking services is important for local communities like my hon. Friend’s. We are accelerating the roll-out of at least 350 banking hubs, more than 100 of which are already open, and plans were announced at the end of last year to open a banking hub in his constituency.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
This week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Hertford regional college campus in Ware. I met some of its talented hairdressing apprentices and instructors, heard about how they are filling jobs at small and medium-sized enterprises in our community, and discussed HRC’s apprenticeship offer to my constituents. As we mark National Apprenticeship Week, will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Hertford and Stortford’s apprentices, and will she allow for a debate in Government time on how the Government’s apprenticeships and skills offer will drive growth and help to deliver our plan for change?
Lucy Powell
As my hon. Friend can see, I am particularly keen on hairdressing apprenticeships. Hairdressing is one thing that we will never be able to do on the internet, so it is a job for life for people who go down that route. He is absolutely right that we need to open up more apprenticeship opportunities to more young people. That is why, as we mark National Apprenticeship Week, we have announced changes to flexibility on maths and English requirements, which we think will open up far more opportunities for young people such as those in his constituency.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Last weekend, Renfrewshire council confirmed a case of H5N1 avian influenza at Castle Semple loch in Lochwinnoch in my constituency. That outbreak’s proximity to RSPB Scotland Lochwinnoch nature reserve has raised serious concern in the local area. What steps are the UK Government taking to engage with the Scottish Government on that matter, and what action are they taking to support conservation organisations and farmers in Scotland in respect of avian flu?
Lucy Powell
The outbreaks of avian flu in recent years have been incredibly difficult for the birdkeepers on the frontline of that terrible disease. My hon. Friend will know that disease control is a devolved matter, but an animal disease policy group co-ordinates the response across the devolved nations and with the UK Government. I will continue to ensure that she is updated on those matters.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of sport in the community, and particularly of sustainable community-focused programmes? That is particularly pertinent for my constituency given that the fantastic Caerau Ely AFC is taking on Connah’s Quay Nomads FC in the quarter-finals of the Welsh cup on Sunday. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Caerau Ely all the best for Sunday?
Lucy Powell
I wish Caerau Ely all the best for this weekend’s game. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that grassroots sports play such an important role across our communities for young people, particularly in keeping them fit and healthy and giving them the skills for life they need, including through team sports. That is why the Government continue to be committed to grassroots sport.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Last weekend, I went to see Dudley Town FC draw 1-1 at home against Lichfield City. Unfortunately, that “home game” was not within the constituency. In fact, Dudley has not had a stadium in the constituency for decades, despite being established in 1888. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on grassroots football and how we can bring clubs like mine back home where they belong?
Lucy Powell
I hope that the club will one day be back in the constituency. She is right to raise such matters. Grassroots sports and football are important to the Government. That is why we are bringing forward the Football Governance Bill, among other things, and there are routes to clubs like hers getting the funding support to bring them home.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Last week, I had the honour of visiting Unstone junior school in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the staff. There was also the opportunity for some of the children to ask me questions, and a range of issues were raised, including the environment. Crucially, I was asked this question: what more can we do to support the school in providing healthy eating and, in particular, allowing the children to have watermelon and strawberries for their lunch?
Lucy Powell
I would strongly encourage the young people of my hon. Friend’s constituency to have access to watermelon and strawberries for lunch. How refreshing that is, because they would certainly not be at the top of my children’s list of things for lunch, so the school is obviously doing a great job on educating its young people on healthy eating.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
UK Sport-supported events generated £373 million in 2023 alone. Luton Hoo in my constituency is bidding to be a venue for the 2031 Ryder cup. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on attracting major international sporting events to the UK as part of supporting our growth agenda, attracting local investment, providing good jobs and inspiring pride in local communities?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. England has not hosted the Ryder cup since 2002. I know that Luton Hoo has a strong bid to host it, and I wish it the very best. She is absolutely right that big sporting events bring huge amounts of regeneration, economic input, jobs and opportunities, as well as giving pride in place for constituents like hers.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Tamworth town centre is being obliterated by roadworks that started on Monday. Staffordshire county council has not properly consulted or informed schools, businesses, residents or the borough council. A hotel has lost £700 of business in 24 hours; traffic is at a standstill; and roadworks are going through the night—my community is rightly up in arms. Can we have a statement on how the Government are holding councils to account to ensure that they are not undermining the Government’s growth agenda around core administration and planning, particularly around roadworks?
Lucy Powell
This issue will be familiar to many of us in the House. Poorly carried out roadworks can cause a great deal of disruption to people and businesses, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that her local council will have heard her call, and I encourage the council to get a grip of this project so it does not cause such disruption.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Last year, the Government announced an extra £1 million for boosted antisocial-behaviour patrols across Cumbria, which was extremely welcome. Since then, we have seen a huge reduction in antisocial behaviour in those hotspots in Cleator Moor, Workington and Whitehaven. Under the leadership of the brilliant Labour police commissioner in Cumbria and the Government’s support, we are putting an extra £1.7 million in for the coming year. Would the Leader of the House thank the members of the public who have come forward to report crime and share intelligence and thank the officers who have done so much to bring down crime?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to hear that action is being taken in my hon. Friend’s constituency on crime and antisocial behaviour, because it is such a blight on our communities and gets raised with us as Members of Parliament all the time. As part of our safer streets mission, the Government are committed to reducing antisocial behaviour and crime. My hon. Friend described some of the measures that we have brought in, and many more will be in the upcoming crime and policing Bill, including respect orders, dispersal orders and tough action on quad bikes.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent David Freeman is a nuclear test veteran who was deployed to Christmas island. Since he returned, he has faced a range of health issues, including cancer. He was rightly awarded the nuclear test medal, but much more needs to be done to recognise and compensate veterans like David. Like many, he has been unable to access his medical records. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking David and all nuclear test veterans, and will she provide time for an update on this important issue, including on medical records and compensation?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking David and all our nuclear test veterans. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they did and what they put themselves through for this country. We are looking into the unresolved questions about the medical records. It is a priority, and I hope that the House will be updated on the matter as soon as there is something to say.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement that there will be a public inquiry into what led to the tragic killing of three people in Nottingham in 2023. This follows the publication of the independent mental health homicide review into the case last week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or statement to consider the findings of the review to ensure that, while the public inquiry takes place, important lessons are learned immediately in every part of the mental health system to prevent similar cases?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences once again to the families of those who were killed in that horrific attack. The Prime Minister met those families this week, and he confirmed that a retired judge will be appointed in due course, that the process will begin to ensure there is a proper inquiry, and that the families get answers to all those unanswered questions. The details of the inquiry will be announced to Parliament in due course, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Conservative-led Derbyshire county council is axing care services. At Thomas Fields care centre in Buxton, the council is cutting residential beds and dementia beds, meaning that Alan and June, who are 96 and 91, have been married for 72 years and have never been apart, will be separated. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time to protect care services across Conservative-led Derbyshire and help Alan and June stay together?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of what could happen to Alan and June—it is just unthinkable—and of the proposed closure of the care home. It will not help my hon. Friend’s constituents right now, but the Government are obviously committed to sorting out the social care crisis, and that is why we have a special commission led by Baroness Louise Casey. But I hope that Derbyshire county council has heard his question and will ensure that every step is taken to ensure that his constituents can stay together in the final days of their lives.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I was pleased to support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Monday to deliver on our election promise of implementing the Border Security Command, tackling the organised immigration crime gangs and bringing order to our asylum and immigration system. However, for most people, it is not possible to claim asylum from outside the UK, which means that any asylum seeker has to make their way to this country first before they can claim asylum. That has led to many calls, including from MPs, to provide safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Does the Leader of the House agree that after achieving border security, we need to have a debate on providing an alternative way of seeking asylum so that genuine asylum seekers do not feel the need to risk their lives crossing the channel in small, unsafe boats to claim asylum?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do need to take further steps to secure our borders, because the levels of illegal immigration coming into this country are not acceptable. That undermines the whole system that he has described, and trust in that system, which is there for those who need it most and are fleeing persecution, or who want to make a home for themselves in this country. We will always do our bit to help those who are fleeing persecution. It is a long-standing policy that those who arrive in this country illegally are not eligible for citizenship, but I will certainly make sure that the Home Secretary keeps the House updated on these important matters.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Corseford college in my constituency is Scotland’s only further education college for people with complex and additional needs. After an anxious few months, that college has learned that funding has been secured for the next two years. Does the Leader of the House agree that colleges such as Corseford need long-term security of funding to plan and build their support for people with complex needs in Scotland, and would she be willing to have a debate on long-term support for college services for young adults with complex and additional needs?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Colleges such as Corseford in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which provide education and support for those with complex needs, are vital for our young people, and I am sorry to hear about the uncertainty it has faced. This Government have boosted funding for colleges, but this is a devolved matter, so I hope that the Scottish Government, who have now received a significant increase to their funding, will follow suit and ensure that colleges such as Corseford are secured for the long term.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Yesterday, I hosted “Taste of Colne Valley”, at which we celebrated the rich diversity of local businesses, featuring J Brindon Addy butchers, Zapato Brewing, Longley Farm and Dark Woods Coffee. People were able to come along and sample home-made sausage rolls, yoghurt, IPAs and coffee. That event emphasised how important it is to support locally run businesses in our communities, something I have long advocated. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the significance of supporting local businesses?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely—I am all for supporting local businesses, especially ones that serve sausage rolls and beer. I am sure we can all be encouraged to continue to do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: shopping local and shopping independent supports our vital high streets in communities such as his, and I am sure that we all welcome his comments.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
As we have heard, it is National Apprenticeship Week. In constituencies such as mine, apprenticeships are hugely important for people securing good jobs underpinned by strong skills. Given the Government’s commitment to growth, supported by a lot of infrastructure projects and building, does the Leader of the House agree that we need to make sure that an apprenticeship scheme is embedded in each of those projects, so that we are building not just infrastructure but jobs and skills? Will she use her good offices to make sure that challenge is picked up across Government?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Without apprenticeship reform, and without increasing the number of young people who can access apprenticeships, we will not be able to meet our big ambitions for house building, infrastructure and other programmes. That is why we have begun the process of reform: we have made announcements this week about functional English and maths, the Bill to establish Skills England will come before the House after we return from recess, and there are many other things that we are doing. I join my hon. Friend in that call.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
On 1 April, Tory-run Hampshire county council will remove the ability of those with disabilities to use their concessionary bus pass before 9.30 am. Multiple constituents have written to me in great distress about the impact this will have on them and their family members. One mother wrote to me to tell me how that bus pass has given her daughter, who has autism and learning difficulties, incredible opportunities and independence, including access to education. I am calling on Hampshire county council to think again. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to debate this important issue?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that Hampshire county council has removed the ability of disabled people to use their concessionary bus pass before 9.30 am. That decision is of great concern; it flies in the face of what that this Government—and, in fact, this country—should be seeking to do, which is to support those with disabilities to get an education, in order to help them to work. Clearly, this decision goes in the opposite direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call Helena Dollimore to ask the final question, I would like to note that we have got 55 people in. I thank the Leader of the House very much for her persistence and her devotion to business questions.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
At a time when local news organisations are closing or being cut back, we in my constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages are very lucky to have two fantastic independent news organisations, Rye News and the Hastings Independent Press, both of which are celebrating their 10th anniversary. They are volunteer-led, and those volunteers do a huge job, updating the community on what is going on and holding people such as myself to account. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing them a happy 10th birthday and thanking them for all their hard work?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Rye News and the Hastings Independent Press, on the occasion of their 10th anniversary, for all the amazing work they do. She is absolutely right that local journalism—however difficult it might be at times for us as local MPs—is vital to our media and our communities in unearthing and reporting on important stories that are often missed by many.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update to the House on the progress made to provide compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal.
In May 2024, the infected blood inquiry’s report exposed a catalogue of failures at the systematic, collective and individual levels. Thousands of lives were needlessly lost, and too many people continue to suffer as a result of failures stretching back decades. I welcome the commitment across the House to holding the Government to account on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, and I will continue to provide regular updates on the Government’s progress.
In December 2024, I published the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. In that response, on behalf of the UK Government and working closely with the devolved Governments, I accepted either in full or in principle all 12 of the inquiry’s recommendations. I will provide a further update on those recommendations in May of this year, as requested by the inquiry.
I will now update the House specifically on the inquiry’s recommendation on compensation. In August 2024, I established the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. That enabled the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making compensation payments to people who are infected. I was pleased that IBCA delivered on our shared commitment to make the first compensation payments by the end of last year. That was a significant step, and the work to progress payments quickly continues as an absolute priority.
Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. As those regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, there will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate and approve them before they become law. When laying before the House the previous regulations to establish the scheme for people who are infected and are claiming compensation under the core route, I made a commitment on the Floor of this House that those regulations would come into force by 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval. I would welcome the support of the House in approving those regulations, enabling us to deliver compensation to those who deserve it as quickly as possible.
I am fully aware of how important it is to the House, and to the many victims of this appalling scandal, that the Government provide clear and regular updates on our progress in establishing the infected blood compensation scheme. I have therefore come before the House today to explain the steps that have been taken and what they mean.
Once approved by Parliament and in force, the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. By way of a reminder, those affected include partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Those people have suffered terribly from the impact of infected blood on their loved ones, and these regulations mark a significant milestone for them. The Government will do all we can to support IBCA’s aim of the first compensation payments to eligible affected people being made before the end of this year, and by laying these regulations we are a step closer to achieving that aim.
As we set out in August, the infected blood compensation scheme is tariff-based. The tariffs are intended to work in a way that would be appropriate for the majority of people applying to the scheme. However, we know that the impact infected blood has on people’s lives varies hugely. Each person’s experience is unique and heart- breaking, and the Government recognise that there are some exceptional cases where the level of compensation offered through the core route does not sufficiently address a person’s individual circumstances. For that reason, the Government have provided for higher levels of compensation for specific awards through the supplementary route, where people can demonstrate their eligibility. The regulations I have laid before Parliament set out the details of that supplementary route.
Once in force, the regulations will allow IBCA to make payments to eligible people through both the core and supplementary routes. All applicants will need to go through their initial core route assessment before applying to the supplementary route, but doing so will not delay payment of that initial core compensation offer. The regulations I have laid propose to restate and consolidate the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, which were approved by Parliament in October last year. We have done that primarily for reasons of simplicity. Having a single set of regulations that consolidates the provisions means that it has been possible to cover all compensation routes for all eligible people in a single place.
Alongside the draft regulations, yesterday we published an accompanying explanatory memorandum and equalities impact assessment. We also updated the compensation scheme explainer on gov.uk. I have heard from the community the importance of a simpler document, so I commit today to the publishing of a wider, simpler document. I have already engaged with several hon. and right hon. Members across the House in recent days, and I will continue to do so on the substance of these regulations in the coming weeks.
I would also like to welcome the progress being made in delivering compensation. In addition to the over £1 billion of interim compensation payments that have been paid so far, IBCA has now invited 113 people to claim compensation. So far, 23 offers have been made, totalling over £34 million, and 14 offers have been accepted and paid, totalling over £13 million. IBCA remains on track to invite 250 people to apply by the end of March, and it will continue to publish its monthly statistics on its website. However, this is only the beginning, and there is much more work to do.
This week, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation service in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This decision was taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. The groups that IBCA will work through as it builds the claim service will be as follows. The first will be people who are living infected and are already registered with a support scheme. IBCA already has the details of those people through the infected blood support schemes, and it began making payments to this group in 2024. IBCA intends to accelerate the number of claims it is processing from April.
The second stage will be people making supplementary claims. The regulations I am laying provide IBCA with the ability to process these claims. As IBCA develops its service, this will it to process the different types of evidence needed for supplementary claims and allow people to settle their claims in full as quickly as possible. People who have registered estates are in the third group IBCA has set out. This is where an estate has already been verified as eligible for compensation through the interim payment scheme that I announced in October last year. This will ensure that significant compensation can reach multiple people, who could include both those who are infected and those who are affected.
People who are affected and linked to a registered infected person or a registered estate will be in the fourth group. If an infected person or an estate is registered, this will allow IBCA to progress an affected person’s claim more quickly. The fifth group that the service will be developed for is people who are infected, but not registered with a support scheme. The sixth group will be people who are either applying on behalf of an infected person who has not previously been registered with an infected blood support scheme, or people who are affected and not linked to a registered claim. IBCA expects that it may take slightly longer to work through the claims of people who have not previously been registered for compensation.
The IBCA board assures me that this is in no way intended as a prioritisation of different claimants, but is the best way of building the service so that IBCA can get to the point where it can progress all claims as quickly as possible. Crucially, it does not mean that all claims in each group need to be finished before developing and opening the service for the next group.
IBCA has communicated its decision on its website and through the regular community update, and it has written to members of the infected blood community and right hon. and hon. Members with whom it has previously engaged to inform them of its plans. Determining these groupings is a heavy responsibility, and I am pleased that IBCA sought feedback from the infected blood community in reaching this decision. The community must, after all, be kept at the centre of all this work.
While the roll-out of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA as an independent body, I fully support its commitment to moving forward as swiftly as possible, and I was encouraged to see the dedication of its staff and leadership in my visit to the organisation last month. As compensation applications increase, I know that IBCA is determined to ensure payments are made to people as soon as possible. I will set out more detail on this in due course, but it will include key performance indicators that IBCA will be working towards to make sure that compensation claims are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Of course, decisions on the parameters of and eligibility for the scheme remain ones for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, as is set out in the regulations I have laid, and are not impacted by IBCA’s decisions.
Let me conclude by saying that in laying these regulations, we are one step closer to having the entire infected blood compensation scheme fully established in law. I understand the importance of providing an opportunity for everyone across the House to debate this matter. This will be another significant moment for all those who have waited too long. On 30 January, I was able to meet a number of representatives from the community to update them on the Government’s plans. As ever, I found it an invaluable experience, and I am hugely grateful to those who shared their thoughts and experiences.
On my appointment to this role in July, I was determined to meet the first statutory deadline of 24 August for the first set of regulations. Over the past seven months, I have been insistent to my officials and the community on the importance of making sure that, after 40 years of injustice, justice is now finally being delivered and compensation rightly being paid. The Budget announced £11.8 billion of funding for this compensation scheme, showing the scale of this Government’s commitment to concrete action. I hope parliamentarians across both Houses will support the regulations, so we can finally focus solely on delivering compensation to those who have waited for justice for far too long. I commend this statement to this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind the Minister that statements should be limited to 10 minutes and that it is courteous to let the Speaker’s Office know if a statement will exceed this time. The Opposition will of course be allocated additional time. I call the shadow Minister.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very thorough statement and for advance sight of it.
I want to start by thanking the campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy that occurred over a number of decades. The previous Conservative Government took the first steps towards recognising the horrific wrong inflicted on so many patients and their loved ones in opening and concluding the inquiry into the infected blood scandal, but particular acknowledgement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) who worked so hard when he was Paymaster General to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice.
I welcome the progress the Government have made since the election. Parliamentary politics inevitably focuses on division and there is plenty on which we profoundly disagree with the Government, but on this matter we speak as one. There is nothing of substance that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are doing that is meaningfully different from what we would have done if we had still been in government. We will of course review the legislation on the next stage of the infected blood compensation scheme, but the Minister and all who are campaigning for justice can be assured that we will support the Government in their efforts.
We welcome the start of compensation payments by IBCA, but we know that victims have raised concerns about the pace of processing applications for compensation. I hope the Minister can confirm what measures he is putting in place to ensure that the processing capacity within the authority is adequate and that application processing can be sped up, because the next phase of the compensation framework will mean that applications to the authority could increase by tens of thousands. All victims and their families need to know what is being done to ensure that those claims can be processed at pace.
I am concerned by reports that only a very small fraction of those who may be eligible to claim compensation have been contacted so far; one estimate puts it as low as 0.2% of possible claimants, although I recognise that such estimates can sometimes be out of date. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the percentage of those believed to be eligible who have been contacted so far. I know that the Minister will understand the need for the Government to communicate clearly to all who may be eligible to encourage them to apply.
That reinforces the importance that must be placed on processing claims quickly. Those who are eligible must have confidence that their claims will be accurately and quickly processed so that they receive the payment they are entitled to as soon as possible. I appreciate, of course, the staged manner in which the authority is taking claims and the need to prioritise certain claims, but I hope the Government can reiterate clearly that no one needs to worry about the capacity within the authority and the system, particularly in relation to claims that will be processed in the later stages.
I ask the Minister to offer some clarity on his assessment of whether the funding allocated so far will cover all the expected claims. We know that up to 140,000 relatives could apply for compensation as a result of the planned expansion of claim eligibility. While the Government understandably cannot provide an exact estimate of the total funding required, that would go some way to offering reassurance to victims and their families that the funding for the authority to compensate in full all who suffered harm or loss and for all the operational requirements of the authority is properly provided for.
All of us in this House understand the scale and damage of this scandal and recognise the immense efforts of victims and their families in pushing for justice, and we welcome the laying of the regulations. I conclude by repeating my assurance on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we will work with the Government to ensure that everyone who is eligible is aware and that they receive the compensation that they need and deserve as quickly as possible.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make sure that your stricture about time is properly communicated across Government, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) about my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who did so much in government to push this forward? Just as I offered cross-party support when shadowing him, the continued cross-party support today is very important in respect of the speed at which we are able to push forward with the legal framework we are putting in place.
On the issue of speed, I am restless for progress. While IBCA is of course an arm’s length body and has operational independence, I will none the less have more to say in due course about key performance indicators, as the House will want to continue to raise the speed of payments being made to constituents.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about clarity of communication. I am forever emphasising the need for simple explainer documents on what are complex regulations. Finally, the Government have already allocated £11.8 billion in funding for the operation of IBCA and for compensation, and we are committed to compensate all the victims of this terrible scandal.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the progress he has made in seven months, not least on the £11.8 billion he secured in the Budget; he deserves credit for that. It is regrettable that we lost a year from Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report in which he gave his final recommendations on compensation, stating that the Government had no reason to delay setting up the compensation process. I know my right hon. Friend is aware that there are still concerns about the tariff, particularly among those infected with hepatitis C and those who endured unethical testing. Does he agree that, while we must move ahead with all haste to get people the justice they deserve, IBCA must have flexibility in its decisions when dealing with those who feel that the tariff does not recognise the suffering they have endured?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Obviously the tariffs were set on the basis of the expert group chaired by Sir Jonathan Montgomery and I compliment him on the work he did in that regard. However, the tariffs and the scheme also recognise particular individual circumstances and cases that are more complex. That is why the supplemental route is being put in place. I would add that I saw when I visited IBCA—I understand that my hon. Friend will be visiting shortly—the sympathetic, compassionate approach being taken with regard to evidence, given how long ago so much of this happened.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the extension of the infected blood compensation scheme. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS that should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented the scandal from ever taking place.
We are glad that the new regulations will move the victims, both those infected and those affected, closer to long overdue justice. However, we are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims have been receiving compensation, with only 25 people having been invited to claim by December last year. It is right that the Government are now widening the scheme so that compensation reaches many more people as soon as possible.
It is also crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of the charities, organisations and affected individuals are heard. To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, will the Minister outline a timeline for when all victims can expect to have received their long overdue compensation? Furthermore, will the Government introduce a duty of candour on public officials so that such a scandal is never repeated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this scandal goes across decades and across Governments. While compensation is obviously one of the crucial recommendations, there are a total of 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, on which I will be updating the House in due course. At present, IBCA will meet its target of 250 people by the end of next month. The approach it is taking is one of test and learn. That enables IBCA to scale up more quickly to be able to do what we all want it to do, which is to get compensation as quickly as reasonably possible to those who need it. I would expect the first payments to the affected to begin before the end of this year. Finally, on the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, I expect to be introducing legislation to this House on that before 15 April, which, of course, is the Hillsborough anniversary.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I want to focus on what he said about the progress being made in delivering compensation for victims and their families. I recently met a constituent of mine, Sue Sparkes, who lost her husband Les owing to infected blood in 1990. She is concerned that it will take many, many years to make all these payments. I do not doubt my right hon. Friend’s commitment and passion on this issue to tackle injustice and deliver the culture change that is needed, but will he assure Sue and me that every lever of government is being pulled to ensure that all payments to infected and affected individuals are made as a matter of urgency?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can certainly give that assurance both to my hon. Friend and to his constituent, Sue. The Government will continue to push this forward as quickly as is reasonably possible. I am conscious of the strength of feeling, and I am also conscious that victims have waited decades for justice, and that need for speed is recognised across Government.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Every Member of this House should welcome this statement, as I certainly do, as there is no greater horror imaginable than becoming chronically sick as a result of what ought to be a routine medical procedure—a blood transfusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman, following on from the previous question, ensure that these matters are dealt with promptly? Will he reflect on what the report into these matters describes as institutional failures? The National Audit Office looked at compensation for a range of scandals and concluded:
“There is no central coordinated approach when government sets up new compensation schemes resulting in a relatively slow, ad-hoc approach.”
The report recommended that the Cabinet Office reviews its arrangements to
“allow compensation schemes to begin and operate in a more timely…and effective manner”.
When the Minister returns to the House, will he reflect on that recommendation and perhaps say to the House what the Government will do in response?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and what is crucial, whether it is this compensation scheme or others that have been run by Government, is that we learn the lessons between the different compensation schemes and we learn best practice. I absolutely agree with him that that is crucial with this compensation scheme, too.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Brian Heatlie, a haemophiliac, was given infected blood products in 1982 at the age of five. As a result, he died in 1996 at the age of 18. His devoted parents, Lynda and James, from New Mills in my constituency of High Peak, have been waiting 28 years for compensation, and they are now in their 70s. Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will mean that it may be possible for victims who have lost loved ones in this scandal, such as Lynda and James, to receive both their own compensation and compensation for the estate of their loved ones?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think I speak for the whole House in sending our sympathies to Lynda and James for the indescribable sense of loss and the experience that they have been through over so many years. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. These consolidated regulations are for the estates of infected people, but also for the affected, too. But I know, and the whole House would agree, that no amount of money can make up for that awful experience.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement. Nobody in the House is not reassured by what he has said. He also referred to the regional Administrations and how this will affect them, and he has had those discussions with them. There are reports today that only 0.2% of eligible family members have been contacted about the scheme, and there are concerns that the scheme does not have the capacity to cope with the numbers of potential applicants. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that there is capacity for all those families to have a sense of recognition and to be definite about a form of restitution?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, in terms of numbers, as I indicated, IBCA is operating a test and learn approach that then allows it to scale up. It will scale up its capacity alongside that, to ensure that it has the capacity it requires to process the claims. As I indicated, I visited IBCA last month. I can already see that scaling up starting to take place, and the hon. Member can certainly give assurance to his constituents that the Government will continue to do all we can to ensure the swift delivery of compensation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s update. My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fiona, was infected with hepatitis B following blood transfusions in 1954 and 1985. Fiona is apparently not entitled to any form of support or compensation payment because of missing medical records and because of receiving a transfusion both before and after the 1972 cut-off relating to screening for hepatitis B. Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and me to discuss this matter and ensure that she and others affected in similar circumstances—apparently a small number—can receive compensation and justice under this Labour Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Generally, with regard to evidence, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has said that when an individual is invited to make their claim, it will aim to gather some of the information, including medical records and information about an applicant’s condition and severity, from organisations that already have it. That should mean that those claiming will be asked for the least amount of information possible. I know that IBCA is currently considering what guidance can be provided for people ahead of making a claim. On the specific case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Fiona, if he sends me the details, I am more than happy to look into it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which he has made his statement? I think he would agree that there are still issues around speed, quantum, flexibility and care. Am I right in thinking that IBCA does not have any flexibility about the amount of damages paid? If so, can he give a rough indication of what sort of compensation is paid when someone has lost their life as a result of being poisoned by the NHS? Is it the case that people have to make an individual settlement and agreement on what they will accept? If so, is there any professional support that someone, who might be quite ill, can get before signing on the dotted line and possibly signing away their rights to more compensation than they might otherwise receive?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases. I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial. I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the update? Despite his sterling efforts—I really mean that—the process has taken far too long. Victims are dying at the rate of two per week, never having seen the compensation they deserve. Victims are very much unaware of, and desperate to understand, what and how much compensation they might even be due under the process.
Can the Minister say how many of the 5,000 infected victims will be invited to apply to the scheme during 2025? Has he considered, or is there potential to consider, allowing victims to take support scheme payments as a lump sum without any reductions?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On people’s having a sense of the amount of money they will get, the Government published explainer documents in August last year—and in recent days—that are on the Government website. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is intending to publish a compensation calculator for the infected core award by the end of March.
On my hon. Friend’s other points, the number of victims paid will be regularly published by the IBCA during the course of the year. The payments to the infected have started, and I expect payments to the affected to begin before the end of the year. As regards the support schemes, one change that the Government made was to allow both a lump sum payment and the continuation of the support schemes. That came through from the consultation that Sir Robert Francis undertook during the general election campaign. I have made that change to the scheme, and how that works precisely is set out in the explainer document.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the update; indeed, I am grateful that he has given several updates to the House. My North East Fife constituent was infected a number of years ago and involved in the campaign for a long time. He has shared concerns about the evidential standard expected of claimants, particularly in relation to medical records. Indeed, his lawyers have told me that they have concerns that case managers are not correctly interpreting the initial date of infection because medical records are not available to substantiate that. They also have concerns that the Australia antigen has not been properly understood as an indicator of HBV. Is the Paymaster General aware of those concerns? Can he comment on them?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the issue of evidence. There is the specific issue that she referred to, but there is also a far more general problem about incidents often being from a long time ago. We also know that in some cases there was deliberate destruction of records. The level of evidence is therefore clearly a significant issue. As I have indicated, when I visited the IBCA, I heard from claim managers about the approach they are taking and the culture that is being imbued—an enabling culture—and about how the IBCA will aim to gather some of the information to assist victims, which I think will be a vital part of the process.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment to this issue. Will he say a little more about how he is working with colleagues in Scotland to drive forward the final compensation scheme? I share the concerns already expressed by hon. Members across the House about the need for speed in ensuring that victims receive the compensation that they so rightly deserve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I assure my hon. Friend that I work closely with the devolved Administrations on the issue of compensation. There is a broader point as well: events that took place in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond occurred in the pre-devolution age. Over the next few months, as we look to implement the rest of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, partnership work with the devolved Administrations will become even more important.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the Paymaster General for an advance copy of his statement. I recognise his sincerity, and the hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into progressing this vital compensation scheme. I also understand the need for him and his colleagues to take small initial steps to test their systems and processes, but as others have said, legal representatives fear that many will die while they wait, and justice delayed is justice denied. Does he really think that is good enough, given the numbers involved? Will he consider strengthening the authority’s teams who are processing these claims, so that the pace can be rapidly accelerated, and so that they can meet the forthcoming key performance indicators to which he referred? Finally, the last time we spoke about the scheme in the Chamber, he undertook to look at the role of voluntary organisations that provide vital support to claimants, and to consider putting funding for them on a statutory basis. Will he comment on that as well, please?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he mentioned me and my colleagues, but of course IBCA is an arm’s length body—it is operationally independent—so it takes operationally independent decisions on how best to pay out the money to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. As I said, it has decided to adopt a test-and-learn approach to make that possible.
One of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations is that we look at support for voluntary organisations. That will be covered in an update that I will give to the House in due course on all 12 recommendations. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that I am, and will continue to be, restless for progress. On his point about IBCA scaling up and having more staff and claims managers, that is precisely what it is doing at the moment.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and update. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have a constituent, Janet, who is in her 80s. She tragically lost her first and second husband to infected blood, and she is due to receive compensation as their next of kin. She would like to ensure that she can pass the payments on to their children, who, as the Minister rightly said, are victims, too. However, she has been advised that if that happened, it would constitute a secondary transfer and be subject to inheritance tax. We are talking about people who lost their father and stepfather to this issue. Will he meet me to explore whether a solution can be found in these cases?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, I should say for clarity that all IBCA payments made to those in the UK will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Anyone who is in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA, or is a beneficiary of an estate to which compensation was paid on behalf of the deceased, does not need to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax on the amount that they receive. I am aware of the concern that my hon. Friend is talking about; that is a slightly different situation. If she writes to me with the details of the case, I will be more than happy to look into it.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Paymaster General not only for his statement, but for the clarity and commitment in his answers. As he may remember from previous occasions in the Chamber, I have the personal experience of having lost a very close family friend in the 1990s who was a victim of this. His widow died without compensation, and his children are now among those waiting to hear what will happen. I thank the Minister for his application and commitment, but as others have mentioned, there remains the issue of speed and best practice going forward. He mentioned that he will simplify the process. Can we have updates from him in future on what the Government are doing to examine best practice, and how can future victims of such scandals be assured that they will not have to wait as long as 40 years?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As on the last occasion, I express my sympathies to the hon. Lady for the loss of her family friend back in the 1990s. Of course, I am always looking to share best practice, as I said a moment ago to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. That is vital. I can also give the hon. Lady the undertaking that I will continue to update this House, as I hope right hon. and hon. Members have seen me do over the past seven months. There will also be a debate on the regulations. I will have to give an update on the 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff by the May deadline, but IBCA will also provide regular updates via our newsletter, and I refer her to those as well.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on 24 April 2024, and then when tabling a written parliamentary question to the Deputy Foreign Secretary on 13 May 2024. When I tabled these questions, I inadvertently failed to declare two interests: a reception at the Labour party conference that was sponsored by the high commission of India, and a visit to India that was funded by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue.
Bill Presented
Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Pat McFadden, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Nick Thomas-Symonds, presented a Bill to make provision for persons of the Roman Catholic faith to be eligible to hold the office of His Majesty’s High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 185) with explanatory notes (Bill 185-EN).
LGBT+ History Month
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
For most people under the age of 40, it is almost impossible to imagine a society in which LGBT+ people were not visible and integrated. Most, if not all, of us have LGBT+ family, friends and colleagues; in this Chamber, one in 10 Members identifies as LGBT+, a world record for any Parliament, as far as we know. Yet it was not long ago that LGBT+ people were either invisible or villainised. If an LGBT+ person was hospitalised, their partner was not recognised as next of kin. Trans people on TV were confined to clichés and offensive stereotypes. According to the papers, LGBT+ people were deviants to be feared.
That British society is now largely a welcoming place for LGBT+ people is due to the tireless and patient efforts of countless individuals and groups, from the early efforts of campaigners in the 1950s, quietly seeking the recommendations of Lord Wolfenden and seeing them made into law, to the loud protests against section 28 in the 1980s and the moving fight for marriage equality in the 2010s. These people have not only driven change, but enriched our society.
The Stonewall riots in America were a landmark moment in the global fight for LGBT+ equality. From then on, unapologetic visibility and authenticity would be the banner under which LGBT+ people would organise. Those lessons were learned, and were adapted to the UK, where we have our own history of struggle for LGBT+ equality. Our first Pride march was held in 1972, when a few hundred brave souls wound their way from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square. The trepidation those individuals must have experienced may be hard for many of us today to imagine; yet alongside their trepidation, there must also have been a strong sense of action, achievement and community.
It was undoubtedly that sense of community that played a part in one of the more colourful moments in our history. Some 37 years ago, in this very building, in an inverse of “It’s Raining Men”, a number of lesbians abseiled their way from the Public Gallery on to the Benches of the other place in protest against the passing of section 28. Back in Wales, in the area my family is from, the traditional mining communities of the Neath, Swansea and Dulais valleys were perhaps somewhat bemused to be supported financially and morally during the miners’ strike of 1984 by Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners; in turn, they were repaid by the legendary friendship and loyalty of many of those in the mining communities in 1985, when the miners showed their support by joining the Pride marches in Cardiff and London.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible speech and for her commitment to this House. I know of my hon. Friend’s journey when she was a teacher. Does she agree that it is important for allies to stick together and fight for other people’s rights, as well as our own, if we are truly to move forward with recognising and appreciating people and allowing them to be their authentic selves?
Dame Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to stick together in the fight for rights. I know she has been a fantastic ally of the LGBT+ community.
I am proud to say that the history of LGBT+ rights in this country is intertwined with the history of Labour in government. It was a Labour Government who decriminalised homosexuality in 1967, and a Labour Government who equalised the age of consent in 2000 and repealed the hateful section 28 in 2003. It was a Labour Government who lifted the ban on LGBT+ people serving in the armed forces; created the Gender Recognition Act 2004; pioneered civil partnerships; introduced laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for adoption; and laid down the landmark Equality Act 2010. With each milestone, consensus emerged across the political spectrum that LGBT+ people deserve protection, recognition and opportunity. LGBT+ people were finally viewed as just that: people.
Even the Conservative party, long opposed to much of what I have just outlined, began to change its view. It was, after all, a Conservative Prime Minister, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who introduced same-sex marriage into law, albeit heavily dependent on Labour votes. On that point, I give a special thanks to Baroness Featherstone, the then Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister who pushed through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 with tireless effort.
However, in recent years, that consensus has begun to fray. Increasingly, voices across society and this Chamber are pushing division, anxiety and apprehension. While the tone of debate on LGBT+ rights has always been contentious, the level of toxicity has perhaps never been so intense. Our answer to this must be to lead by example and conduct ourselves in measured, considered and respectful language. It is vital that we—regardless of party or position—promote a tone and quality of debate that, while at times may provoke impassioned disagreement, refuses to lower itself to the politics of division and anxiety.
For decades, Labour in government has sought to advance the rights, protections and opportunities of LGBT+ people, and this Government are no different. Take, for example, conversion practices. We know that they are abuse, that they do not work and that they leave a legacy of painful memories and lasting mental health problems. The previous Government did nothing to ban this abhorrent practice—this Government will be different. That is why we committed to publishing draft legislation in the King’s Speech, detailing our plan to introduce a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Of course, while it is important that we protect people from these abusive practices, the Government have been clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling. It must also respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can play in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In our manifesto, we also committed to modernising, simplifying and reforming gender recognition law while upholding the Equality Act and its provisions on single-sex exceptions. We will remove indignities for trans people, who deserve support and acceptance, while retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor. We will set out our next steps on this work in due course.
I want to touch on the important work this Government are undertaking around sexual health. Everyone in this House today is aware of the terrible toll that HIV and AIDS took upon the LGBT+ community during the 1980s and ’90s. During this time, thousands of young gay and bisexual men and trans people lost their lives. Since then, attitudes have changed through the work of so many courageous individuals. Many of us remember the courage of the then MP for Islington and South Finsbury, Chris, now Lord, Smith. Already the first openly gay MP, in 2005 he announced his HIV-positive status, becoming the first Member of this House to acknowledge their diagnosis.
As set out in our manifesto, HIV is a key priority for the Government, and we have commissioned a new plan to end HIV transmissions in England by 2030. We have shown our commitment to that. Just this week, the Prime Minister showed us all how easy and quick an HIV test can be. Back in November, the Prime Minister confirmed £27 million of additional funding to expand the highly successful NHS emergency department opt-out HIV testing programme. In regard to opt-out testing, we know it works well and is able to reach those who are less likely to engage with sexual health services. During the past 27 months, over 2 million HIV tests have been conducted through the programme.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was not going to intervene on that point, but I was reminded of my Uncle Stephen who sadly passed away in the ’90s following a positive HIV diagnosis and I wanted to take this opportunity to mention him in this place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. Does the Minister agree that it is so important that we end the stigma around HIV to support more people, so that people like my Uncle Stephen do not have their lives ended prematurely?
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning a very, very personal experience of the terrible losses we saw in the 1980s and 1990s. He is absolutely right. From those very first moments, when we were perhaps fearful to be the first person to wear the red ribbon on 1 December, we can now hopefully combat that stigma. But we know there is still a lot to do worldwide to combat stigma and ensure people get the treatments that are available.
Last week, I had the privilege to visit Fast Track Cymru in Cardiff and hear about the innovative work it is doing to eradicate the transmission of HIV, including the test and post service now available in Wales.
Before I move on to issues relating to trans and gender-questioning youth, I am sure I do not need to remind Members of my earlier words urging measured, considered and respectful debate. I am pleased to confirm that NHS England has opened three children and young people’s gender services, in the north-west, London and Bristol. The services operate under an innovative model and embed multidisciplinary teams in specialist children’s hospitals. The services have begun seeing patients from the national waiting list. A fourth service will open in the east of England in spring. NHS England remains on schedule to deliver a gender clinic in each region of England by 2026.
On puberty blockers, I am aware of the views of many on the subject and how sensitive it can be. In March last year, NHS England took the decision not to commission the routine use of puberty blockers for the treatment of gender incongruence, informed by an evidence review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The findings were echoed in the Cass review and in accompanying systematic reviews conducted by the University of York, which found insufficient evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers for adolescents. There is a clear time for this order to be reviewed in 2027. Better-quality evidence is critical if the NHS is to provide reliable transparent information and advice to support children and young people, and their parents and carers, in making potentially life-changing decisions. That is why we are supporting NHS England to set up a study into the impacts of puberty-suppressing hormones as a treatment option for children and young people with gender incongruence. The trial aims to begin recruiting participants in spring 2025.
On education, as many are aware, before venturing into politics I was, by profession, a comprehensive school teacher. Back in the ’80s, section 28, introduced into law by the then Conservative Government, banned the “promotion of homosexuality” or
“the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”
In the classroom, if a pupil was verbally being hateful or discriminatory towards one of their peers, I did not want it to go unchallenged but found myself just telling them not to use such language or risk upsetting someone. Anything more explicit could have been potentially promoting homosexuality and breaking the law, and risked me losing my job. I did not protect those pupils who were the object of such comments in the way that they should have been protected. I should have done more. Today, the notion that an LGBT+ family is pretend is absurd to most. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to find same-sex parents picking up their children from school.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I appreciate the Minister’s apology, but to have taken such a stance would have meant her losing her job. Although we can always reflect and do better in hindsight, we have to be kind to ourselves and give ourselves the space to be able to see the grace in ourselves as well.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for her very kind comments on the issue.
Even today, it does not mean that there are no challenges. Coming out, particularly to family or classmates, is still challenging and scary, with all the worry of how it might be perceived and the fear of bullying.
In 2018, the previous Government introduced LGBT+ people into the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. The reality of diverse family types would, in stark contrast to section 28, be taught as a fact of life in modern Britain. As the House is aware, the RSHE and gender-questioning pupil guidance is currently under review. The Government are engaging with stakeholders, including parents, teachers and pupils. The Government are also drawing from the available evidence, including the Cass review, to finalise the guidance. As the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), said in her first month in office, children’s wellbeing must be at the heart of any decisions on RSHE and gender-questioning guidance.
Another area I wish to touch on today is LGBT+ veterans and personnel in the armed forces. In 2021, Falklands veteran Major General Alastair Bruce married his husband in full military regalia. It was celebrated in regional and national media, yet when he joined the Army in 1979 it was illegal to be both LGBT+ and a member of our armed forces. As a result, the general was forced to hide part of himself for decades just to be afforded the right to serve his country. It was not until 2000 that that harmful policy was rectified, so that ability, not identity, determines if one is able to serve their country. In 2023, Lord Etherton delivered the results and recommendations of his independent review into the period of the ban on LGBT+ personnel. Just this week, at an event to mark 25 years since its lifting, I heard some of the harrowing stories of those affected by that ban.
The Government are committed to delivering in full the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review. Only last month, the winning design for a new LGBT+ memorial for armed forces personnel was unveiled, soon to be housed at the National Arboretum. In December, the Ministry of Defence detailed to the House a financial redress scheme that seeks to acknowledge the consequences of the ban. The Government have increased the financial redress scheme from the original £50 million allocated by the previous Government to £75 million, an increase of 50%. I strongly urge any eligible veterans from that time to contact the scheme as soon as they are able.
More widely, 10 years ago the United Kingdom was ranked as the No. 1 nation in Europe for LGBT+ rights, protections and safety. The UK was a global example not only of acceptance but opportunity. But 10 years of subsequent Conservative Governments has undermined that achievement. From shelving their own LGBT action plan to the embarrassing boycott of their own international LGBT conference and the flip-flopping and delays on banning conversion practices, the Conservative party slid backwards towards the politics of division. This Government aim to reverse that trend. The UK is proud to defend the human rights of LGBT+ people at home and around the world. We are proud members of the Equal Rights Coalition, which is an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to the protection of rights for LGBT+ people. The UK believes that human rights are universal and apply equally to all people. That includes those who are LGBT+, who are some of the most systematically persecuted individuals in the world. Currently, 63 countries criminalise consensual same-sex acts, 13 can impose the death penalty, and at least 49 use legislation to criminalise or harass transgender and gender-diverse people.
The criminalisation of LGBT+ people often stems from colonial-era legislation, much of it imposed by the UK itself. These laws uphold outdated views that undermine the rights of LGBT+ people. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Our network of more than 280 diplomatic missions works to tackle discrimination and end the violence and persecution that persist today. Our £40 million programme is helping to improve political, social and economic empowerment by addressing outdated, discriminatory laws, promoting protective legislation, enabling civil society organisations, and supporting the most vulnerable LGBT+ people in conflict and crisis.
Today I have shared the Government’s commitments in detail. This Government stand ready to deliver for LGBT+ people, ending the dithering of recent years and lowering the temperature of toxic debate. Let me end by saying, as part of the LGBT+ community myself and as the Minister for Equalities, that it is a privilege to open this debate, and I look forward to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box on behalf of his Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but I particularly welcome the chance to take part in this debate during LGBT+ History Month, which was first celebrated in 2005 and has been celebrated every February since then—I wish it a very happy 20th birthday. I welcomed the Minister’s opening speech, and, in particular, her updates on the Cass review of how we support young people and their parents and carers.
The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month is activism and social change, and it is very pleasing that some Members are currently in Westminster Hall debating National HIV Testing Week. As we have heard, in the last few decades some truly remarkable men and women have fought successfully for social change and, more substantially, a complete sea change in social attitudes to LGBT+ people—such a change, indeed, that in 2019, under the Conservatives, Alan Turing was pictured on the £50 note. What progress! The fact that we are now rightly, properly and joyfully able to celebrate gay marriage is another huge step forward, and, as we heard from the Minister, as a country we have apologised and worked to compensate our LGBT+ veterans, who have been treated abominably in the service of our country. The fact we can celebrate those individuals in history properly, rather than seeing what they saw—the shameful treatment that they received—and the fact that Alan Turing has been rightly celebrated show just how much we have moved on. Like, I am sure, many other Members who are present today, I have met constituents who have been affected by that ban, and we welcome both the memorial and the redress scheme.
Nowhere have we seen more change in the past 40 years than in the battle on HIV and AIDS. When I was first appointed to my role as shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, one of my first meetings was with representatives of the wonderful Terrence Higgins Trust. Terry Higgins was one of the first people in the UK to die of an AIDS-related illness, and the trust that bears his name was set up with the intention of preventing others from having to suffer in the way in which he had. It focused on raising funds for research and awareness of the illness which at the time was called gay-related immune deficiency, or GRID—the name itself was a marker of prejudice at the time. The trust was the first charity in the UK to be set up in response to the HIV epidemic, and has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS ever since. As we heard from the Minister, this charity is just one of the groups that have driven real, positive change. We are proud and thankful to them all for the work that they have done, then and now.
Dawn Butler
I am reminded of my first experience of training with the Terrence Higgins Trust, learning about HIV and how it could be contracted. What stuck in my mind the most was people saying that it could be caught from saliva. I remember those at the trust saying that to catch it someone would need 2 litres of saliva, like a big bottle of fizzy drink; that is one hell of a sloppy kiss. Does the hon. Member agree that education is key, and that the trust does an amazing job?
Mims Davies
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady, with whom I have the pleasure of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. These stigmas, these mindsets, these myths have divided people and made life more difficult because of a lack of understanding and the promotion of fear, and I am very pleased that we have been able to tackle them through the work of that wonderful charity and many others. It was a pleasure to meet representatives of the Terrence Higgins Trust recently.
The Minister mentioned wider sexual health, and, as a mum of two young daughters, I know of the continuing need to meet the wider sexual health challenges facing our young people. We also need to meet the target of ending new HIV cases by 2030. I was honoured to be asked to speak at the Terrence Higgins Trust event during last year’s Conservative party conference, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). We all spoke about the progress being made and the commitment to doing what still needs to be done to deliver the ambition of ending HIV cases by 2030 and tackling the stigma. We in the Opposition will work stridently with the Government to achieve that aim, because this truly is a cross-party, cross-community issue.
The last Conservative Government legalised self-testing kits for HIV in 2014, self-testing was rolled out in England in 2015, and the trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis in England began in 2017. This is National HIV Testing Week, and I am proud to say that, in 2012, it was the Conservatives who funded the first one ever. I have three kits in my office to do exactly what we should all be doing: I shall be handing them out and doing a test myself to show how easy it is.
Any Member who, like me, represents a rural area will know that gaining access to healthcare can involve challenges—for instance, getting the message out about safe sex, access to contraception and regular testing, and the additional logistics involved in being a young person living in a rural area. Those challenges need to be understood. Many of my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages have to travel many miles to Brighton or Crawley to get a test. For my younger constituents, the problems may relate to a lack of transport or connectivity, isolation or loneliness, or simply not having anyone to talk to. I would encourage people to sign up for a test online and have a kit delivered to their door, as that may be easier and more appropriate. I say to my young constituents: “As your MP, I am a champion for you, and I hope that you are feeling supported by me. I am here to listen to you and stand up for your equality.” I am sure that all Members will feel the same.
Over the last few years, both in the civil service when I served as the Minister and in Parliament, I have enjoyed and often learned a lot from working with my friends and colleagues who are LGBT+, and I have been humbled by their bravery. It is often still too hard for people to speak up about the person they are and to be their true, authentic self. I will champion the right of my staff and my friends, as I am sure all of us in this House will, to have the opportunity to be their true, authentic self, because the truest conservative beliefs are those of freedom, equality, liberty and opportunity for all.
In October, at Women and Equalities questions, I asked the Minister for Women and Equalities whether the previous Government’s £20 million commitment to rolling out the successful HIV and hepatitis testing programme will remain. I was pleased when she responded by saying that officials are working up plans. If there is anything further that can be shared with the House today, I would welcome that. I also welcomed the update on the RHSE guidance, which is under review. It is important that parents and loved ones know what is being discussed at school, so that they can discuss and support that at home. Given the discussion this afternoon, that is all the more important.
Public health commissioners are responsible for local sexual health services, including the 2.3% cash increase last year. I hope the Minister will agree that we must ensure we see the delivery of progress and outcomes for those who need that support in our communities, not least because there are worrying statistics from the UK Health Security Agency showing an increase in HIV infections among heterosexual men and that, all too often, there is unsafe sex taking place, which we know puts some people at risk. Having the ability to ask people to test, so that they can have safe sex, is vital—as much as consent.
In the best traditions of this House, one Government builds on the legacy of the previous one. I am very proud of the work we did to ensure that anti-bullying schemes were rolled out for students in 2012, to support LGBT+ students. I welcome what the Minister said—bravery comes in every shape and form, and I thank her for sharing her challenges with us. We are all learning together, and I am delighted to support this debate.
In 2017, the first ever LGBT+ survey of the population was undertaken under the Conservatives. There were many other steps forward, and we must continue in the tradition of challenging and tackling stigma, to reach further important goals. As a responsible Opposition, we must scrutinise and encourage, to make sure we are all moving positively in the right direction.
I look forward to hearing contributions from other Members today, as we continue to stand up for all our constituents, to challenge prejudice, to deliver true equality of opportunity, to celebrate love for all in the memory of and on behalf of those who have led the way, and to continue to deliver for all our constituents whose happiness, success and rights matter to us all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is always an honour to take part in this annual debate commemorating, celebrating and protesting for LGBT+ History Month. I will start by saying that I am incredibly disappointed that there are not more Members of the House present to hear what I know will be a really informative, heartfelt, genuine debate.
The theme for LGBT+ History Month this year is activism and social change, but given what the LGBTQIA+ community is facing at the moment in the media and in political rhetoric, perhaps a more appropriate theme would be survival and existence. We see powerful people—rich people—at home and abroad punching down, referring to the LGBT community as woke, snowflake, weak and fragile. Any of us know that the LGBTQIA+ community is far from all those things, because fighting for who you are and to love who you want to love in the face of hatred, humiliation and persecution is one of the bravest things any of us could ever do. The trans community have to live every day in a body that does not reflect who they truly are—that is courage, and all against a backdrop of conversations about them, without them, particularly for trans men.
Some of the strongest, least snowflake people I could ever have in my life are from the LGBT community. I am so proud to call them my friends. They are basically my extended family; they are the family I chose. They fight to be who they are, and they fight to exist now. I am going to give some personal examples from when I was perhaps at my weakest. As a straight woman, I relied on that community and my friends to hold me up, because they had the strength when I did not.
When I was in my 20s, I used to go out out—as Miley Cyrus says, I used to be young. On one night, I was out out with one of my gay best friends and my non-binary friend. We had gone to a gay club because, unsurprisingly, and for a reason that I cannot possibly put my finger on, I felt safer and able to have more fun in gay nightclubs than I did in straight clubs as a 20-year-old single woman of that time. I cannot think why that might be. We were on our way home, and we wanted chips and a kebab—standard, right? In the queue was a group of lads. They start giving me abuse, with sexual connotations, and me being myself, I did not shut up; I did not take that lying down. I gave as good as I was getting.
They went ahead, and all of a sudden, when we came out with our chips and kebabs, I could feel things hitting my head. They were throwing chips at us. Those chips suddenly became punches to my face, and they pushed me to the ground. Who stood up and fought for me? My gay best friends and my non-binary friend took on five blokes for me—I did not stop fighting either, but they were there when I needed them.
I have worked across different communities on various campaigns, particularly human rights campaigns, and when I have lost those campaigns, my dearest friend Paul has been there to pick me up when I was crying and broken and thought I could not carry on. He showed me the importance of that, because of his experiences of fighting for equality throughout the ’80s and the ’90s and, unfortunately, in 2025.
My dearest friend Helgi was one of the first out LGBT council members of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. I have spoken quite often in this place about the multiple miscarriages I have experienced. I could not have found myself at a darker time than I did then. He was there in the surgery to hold my hand and help me through one of the most difficult procedures, to remove two of the babies that did not make it out. He was my friend and was there when I woke up.
That is the strength of the community. That is the strength of allyship. Right now, they are the ones being attacked. They are the ones feeling isolated. They are the ones feeling without hope. So I make a plea to every ally and to everybody to use their voice to stand up for the many who have used their voices to stand up for our rights, our dignity and our future.
We had an election last year, and I am so proud that my first official engagement was Pride in Luton. Every year it gets bigger and better, and there are more supporters, more attendees and more fun. I took my family with me, and my then four-year-old asked me, “What’s Pride, mummy?” I said, “Pride is a celebration, but it’s also a protest. She said, “Okay.” I said, “Pride is a protest and a celebration of people loving who they want to love and being who they are.” Her reaction was, “Okay,” and she shrugged. We had the best time ever, and I hope that Pride long continues.
But we did not get here without a fight. Over a decade ago, the previous Labour Government introduced some fantastic measures: they removed the terrible section 28 from the statute book; passed a law allowing trans people to legally change their gender; and introduced the Equality Act to protect LGBT+ people from discrimination. Labour also lifted the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people serving in the armed forces; introduced civil partnerships, which—I give credit to the previous Conservative Government—paved the way for same-sex marriage; and brought in laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption. I am pleased that we have that legacy and foundation to build on, but build on it we must.
The plan proposed in the Labour manifesto was to deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. I am pleased that the Minister confirmed at the Women and Equalities Committee yesterday that the ban will be trans inclusive. She gave her commitment on that.
We need to ensure that LGBT+ hate crime constitutes an aggravated offence in the same way as other hate crime offences. We need to bring forward a new HIV action plan, and I am glad that many hon. Members have spoken about that already. We need to right the wrongs endured by LGBT+ veterans, which I know this Government are taking aim at; modernise the law on gender recognition; fix the NHS; and recruit 8,500 more mental health workers. All those are brave and laudable aims, but one thing that has been missing is a timeframe—a schedule for when all these fantastic plans will be put into place. When will the LGBTQI+ community be able to feel the benefits of these laudable and beneficial aims? We have seen many members of that community feeling scared. It is not just about looking across the pond and seeing that their existence has been completely wiped out by President Trump and the richest man in the world; there is also a feeling that there is a rowing back in the UK. I want us to address some of the issues, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain, perhaps in writing, where we are on some of these points.
The indefinite ban on puberty blockers for young trans people has been mentioned. The Women and Equalities Committee held an inquiry, and I am proud to say that although there were diverse opinions among Committee members—I am pleased to see some of them here—and the witnesses themselves, the debate was conducted with dignity and respect, with evidence and with a willingness to try to understand, which has all too long been missing. I cannot yet say what recommendations will come out, because I will get into trouble, but we need to be part of a solution. It is not just about pointing out what the problems are.
Although the Minister said that the use of puberty blockers poses unclear risks of harm, we need to look at the unclear risks of harm from not being able to provide healthcare for trans people when they need it. What can be done to mitigate some of those harms? We have talked about vitamin D, calcium, healthy diets and all the things that would address some of the concerns about puberty blockers. Why is it that the ban is explicitly only for their use in treating people with gender dysphoria? Why is it safe for people with endometriosis, prostate cancer or precocious prepubescence to take puberty blockers, but not for those experiencing gender dysphoria? The Women and Equalities Committee heard evidence from endocrinologists with brains the size of small planets, which was incredibly informative. There is much work to be done, but we need to ensure that it is done fairly, inclusively and with the community, not against it.
There is also a plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act, to make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender. I know that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) called the process “intrusive, outdated and humiliating” in 2022. That is just as true today as it was then, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on when the GRA will be reviewed.
While we all debate this issue, LGBTQ+ people are being isolated further. They are being targeted and talked about, which is coming through clear in the statistics. The number of hate crimes against LGBT+ people increased from 4,345 in 2011-12 to 22,339 in 2023-24. That increase is huge, and it affects real people’s lives. There is also a huge amount of under-reporting, because we know that only one in eight victims report homophobic or transphobic hate crimes to the police. We need to build up society’s trust in the Government to protect the most vulnerable from such crimes. We have a lot of work to do.
Banning conversion therapy has received cross-party support, and I look forward to finding out when we will see a timeline for the ban to come into force. As we heard in the Women and Equalities Committee yesterday, we need to commit to making it trans inclusive, and I would be grateful if that commitment could be reiterated from the Dispatch Box today. When will Ministers commit to a timeline for bringing forward the plan to make anti-LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence?
We have spoken about the new HIV action plan and building on the work of the previous Government, and I am really pleased that we have that. It was wonderful to see the Prime Minister casually taking an HIV test, which is not something that we would have seen in the past. The Minister and the shadow Minister spoke eloquently about the stigma around HIV, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Tackling that stigma is so important, but it is really difficult to break it down when those in power continue to punch down. We have seen that with President Trump’s devastating cuts to USAID, which have left millions across the world without access to lifesaving antiretrovirals. What will the UK do to fill the gap? As we have seen in the US, progress is never inevitable.
I hope this Government can address the concerns of the LGBTQI community, and of those who want to live in a society free from persecution and barriers to healthcare services and safety. We must stay united in the fight, because an attack on one of us is an attack on all, and hatred never stays in one lane for long.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I concur with everything she said about the work being done by the Women and Equalities Committee.
It is important to recognise where we stand in history, because when we talk about LGBTQ rights, women’s rights or racial equality in this place, we often talk about the journey that we have been on and what we have achieved. Yes, we have achieved a lot, but we face enormous challenges at this moment in our history. Our country’s LGBTQ community need to look at us today and know that we will stand up for them and that we will fight for their rights, including their right simply to be who they are.
But we have faced challenges before, and we have overcome them. I think of Scotland, particularly my home city of Glasgow, where I was brought up. In the 1970s, and when I was a student in the 1980s, it had unfortunately garnered for itself the unenviable reputation of being one of the worst places in Europe to grow up gay. Attitudes were somehow more polarised in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. In 1957, a poll showed that more than 80% of Scots did not want homosexuality to be decriminalised; the figure was 51% in England.
In preparing for this debate, I found an article in a 1982 student newspaper from the University of Liverpool, whose student union disaffiliated with the University of Glasgow because it refused to allow a gay society to form. According to the union president, that refusal was on the ground that the age of consent for homosexual sex was 21 and, given that most students were younger than 21, the union did not want to
“give the impression that the Union in some way bestows an unofficial blessing on their activities… many members of the Gay Society are not interested in a constructive approach to changing the membership’s attitude…but using this as a ploy to gain momentum to destroy the character of the Union as we know it.”
We hear an echo of that language today, but imagine how young LGBT people must have felt hearing and reading it. That was the kind of attitude they faced on a daily basis.
And imagine if we had been able to tell them that, 40 years later, Glasgow would be in the top five places in Europe for LGBT people to visit and enjoy and that, despite those attitudes, a long, rich history has developed of the community across Scotland coming together to support each other. We have improved so much, as those figures show.
Edinburgh Befrienders, later known as the Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, opened in 1974 and was the UK’s first bespoke helpline for gay and lesbian people—beating Switchboard, which still exists, by just one day. Edinburgh was also home to Scotland’s first LGBT bookshop, Lavender Menace, and in 1995 welcomed 3,000 people to Scotland’s first Pride march. It is now huge, the event of the year, and I have been privileged to speak at it twice.
Of course, much of this change has been possible only because of public figures, including: former MPs such as Robin Cook, who equalised Scots law and English law on homosexuality; Val McDermid, whose 1987 novel “Report for Murder” featured Lindsay Gordon, Britain’s first fictional lesbian detective; and award-winning author Jackie Kay, the second woman and first lesbian to hold the post of Makar, Scotland’s national poet, and whose work has dealt with race, gender, transgender identities and her own sexuality. Thanks to such people and places, so many attitudes, laws and the understanding of LGBT+ people have changed for the better.
The age of consent was finally equalised for gay and straight people in England, Scotland and Wales in 2000. Same-sex couples were recognised for the first time in 2004 with civil partnerships. In the same year, trans people gained formal recognition in law for the first time with the Gender Recognition Act. And 20 years ago, same-sex couples gained the right to adopt. My party, its politicians and activists played a key role in that fight. As for me, the fight for LGBT+ rights is not just another political issue but, like the fight for all human rights, is part of who I am, what I believe and what my party stands for.
As has already been mentioned, it was thanks to the allyship and hard work of my noble Friend Baroness Featherstone that, in 2013, hundreds of thousands of campaigners and activists across the country finally had their voices heard with the achievement of marriage equality for same-sex couples. However, I sometimes think that focusing on the successes of the LGBT rights movement in the UK leads us to think that everything has been easy, that progress came without any great effort, and that it was quick and natural. We forget the negatives. We forget the fights we had to go through, and our country’s moments of shame. Shame is the only word for the treatment of gay men like Alan Turing, who was imprisoned, chemically castrated and shamed for his sexuality. Shame is the only word for the fact that, before 2000, anyone could be dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay. Shame is the only word for the public distrust—indeed, hatred—that many gay men faced during the AIDS crisis. I grew up during that crisis, and the fear and stigma was sometimes palpable and, despite the public solidarity and support from many lesbian groups, it continued. And, of course, shame is the only word to describe the lasting impact of section 28 on a whole generation of young LGBT people who were not allowed to see themselves represented in schools or have appropriate protection from homophobic bullying.
We may think that these negatives are all in the past, but in recent years we have seen horrible debates on LGBT rights, particularly trans rights, and they have become increasingly toxic. Many trans people see their identities denigrated, their experiences ignored and their lives sidelined in debates about their own rights and their own lives. Too many people forget that at the centre of these culture wars are real people who simply want to live their life and be left alone to be who they are. It is time that we moved the debate forward. It is time that we thought about the people and not the politics, by focusing on the solutions to the issues that the LGBTQ community still faces. We must tackle the growth in hate crime, the misogyny and objectification faced by lesbians, and the intersectional issues faced by black and minority ethnic or disabled LGBTQ people. I am delighted that we will hear about the Government’s draft conversion practices ban Bill soon.
How can we support schools and businesses in eradicating homophobic and transphobic bullying and harassment? We have to think about how we can support trans people in accessing better support, and how we can help non- binary people to gain recognition in law. I hope that the Government will address all these points, and today I am more confident that they will.
The hon. Member for Luton North mentioned her daughter as hope for the future. My daughter is considerably older—in her 20s. A couple of years ago, we went to Edinburgh to see a play, “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”, about a young cross-dressing guy who wants to wear a dress to the prom, which causes all sorts of hassle. We went because I had seen the film and loved it. About halfway through the play, I began to find the audience more interesting. I realised that everybody under the age of about 35 or 40 was totally engaged in what was happening, cheering for Jamie and booing his opponents. It was great. Everybody over the age of about 60 looked stunned. They were looking round, thinking, “What’s going on?”. My daughter Mhairi and I came out and, as we walked along the road, I said, “Your generation really don’t care, do they?” . She said, “No, we don’t get it. We don’t know why it’s a problem, and we don’t know why politicians don’t see that.” I thought to myself, “This toxic argument, which we all want to end, will end, because the younger generation will not allow their peers to be punished for being who they are in the way that mine were.”
I thank the Government for having this debate, and I thank everyone who is here. Please let us send the positive message that we will stand up and make sure that acceptance comes sooner.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in the main Chamber in this Parliament, which, as Mr Speaker told us the other night at his reception, is the gayest Parliament in the world. LGBT History Month has never been more needed, as politicians of all political stripes, here in the UK, in Europe and, of course, in America, try to tear down the few protections that LBGTQ+ people have, attack our rights and rewrite history.
Our history and our activism need to be shouted about. We will not be silenced. We will not be erased. We will not be pushed back into the closet, and our history will be celebrated and remembered. We need people to continue to be brave enough to shout, “I am here.” I am a lesbian, and I am saying that in the mother of all Parliaments—and I will not stop shouting about it. Our diversity is what makes us wonderful; it gives us strength. “Dyke” is no longer an insult, but a badge that I wear with pride, just like my “she/her” pronoun badge.
It has been 40 years since I came out. At the time, I would never have imagined that I would be an out lesbian Member of Parliament 40 years on. In those years, we have seen huge improvements, but we also still have a really long way to go. I would not have imagined that I would still be having the same slurs chucked at me now as I did then, in arguments that try to make out that LGBTQ+ people are a threat to kids. That is why LGBT History Month is so important, why our activism is so important, and why I always say that I am an activist first and a politician second.
We must celebrate our history and remind people that we have always been here, and that trans people have always existed. We also have to remember the lessons of our activism. We have to remember and listen to those who lived those fights, and we have to learn from them in order to defend ourselves and our community from the latest wave of attacks. Over the last few years, I have repeatedly heard, “Why do we need LGBT History Month?”, “Surely Pride is not needed any more,” and “Hasn’t equality gone too far?”, but people are starting to understand why we still need those events. The fight to protect our rights never ends. Even this week, there are far too many people still making those types of comments, and too many people are woefully uneducated about LGBT history.
On 28 June 1970, on the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, the first Pride marches were held in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Pride will always be a protest. Pride events are where our community, in all our diversity, make ourselves visible and stand up for our rights, our identities and our very existence. It is where we use our voices, and where allies show up in solidarity. Pride events are needed for LGBTQ+ visibility and solidarity, to celebrate the milestones achieved in the fight for equality and to remind us of the struggles that remain.
Last year, the town I live in, Hebburn, held its first ever local Pride, thanks to Peter Darrant from Out North East, who also runs the wonderful Pride Radio, which broadcasts nationally from my constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East, and local business leaders such as Wendy Stead and many others. They faced a barrage of abuse. They had the flags ripped down, and the local paper removed the article about the event because of the thousands of abusive comments, and both Peter and I received horrific homophobic and lesbophobic abuse, online and in real life. I am proud to say that Peter, Wendy and the team are ensuring that the local Pride goes ahead again this year, and I will be there, but we need to see more solidarity from people in the face of such hatred, and we need to ensure that there are Pride events in every town and city.
We must tackle the rise in LGBTQ+ hate crime and, in particular, the huge explosion in transphobic hate crime over the last few years. Those attacks reflect an increasingly hostile environment, exacerbated by negative media and political rhetoric, not just in the US, but in Europe and here in the UK. Just last week, a GB News host linked LGBTQ+ people to paedophilia. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to trans people as an epidemic, and as I have reminded her, the definition of that is a
“widespread occurrence of an infectious disease”.
It is no wonder, with language like that, that under the last Conservative Government, the number of hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation increased from around 4,000 in 2011-12 to nearly 23,000 in 2023-24. That is a disgrace, and I am pleased that our Government have promised to tackle LGBTQ+ hate crime by ensuring that it constitutes an aggravated offence.
I must echo the words of the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen): it is so disappointing to see not one Conservative MP on the Back Benches. Previous Labour Governments ensured that equality was at their heart, and I am so pleased that our first ever out lesbian Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), continues that work as a Minister in this Government. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Equalities, who is leading today’s debate, for making sure that we had this debate in Government time, and for everything that she is doing to deliver a fully inclusive ban on so-called conversion practices. I am proud that our Government have been clear that such conversion practices are abuse. They are acts that aim to change people’s—mostly LGBT+ people’s—sexual orientation or gender identity, and we will ban them.
I am proud that it was Labour that lifted the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people serving in the armed forces, and introduced civil partnerships and laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption. I am proud that we are bringing forward a new HIV action plan. I was pleased to speak at an event jointly sponsored by the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Elton John AIDS Foundation in Parliament earlier this week. I am also proud that, despite media reports to the contrary, we will bring forward action on our manifesto commitment to modernise, simplify and reform the intrusive and outdated Gender Recognition Act 2004 and remove indignities for trans people, as well as ensuring that all discrimination and financial barriers are removed when it comes to same-sex in-vitro fertilisation.
However, I once again add a note of caution about our Government’s policy and rhetoric on puberty blockers. I believe that their decision is putting people’s health at risk. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has released a report that notes that the total withdrawal of access to puberty blockers outside a research trial in the UK may breach
“the fundamental ethical principles governing research”.
I urge Ministers to consider the report in detail.
I thank Sue Sanders, the founder of LGBT History Month. We must remember our history, but also acknowledge those who continue to fight, such as Lord Cashman and Baroness Barker, Linda Riley from DIVA, Simon Blake from Stonewall, Shiv, who is organising the London Dyke March, Marty Davies, who does so much to ensure that trans history is recognised, and those who make things happen behind the scenes, such as Marshajane Thompson, who has done so much work in this space for decades. You are pushing for our history to be remembered, and for our rights to be defended, and it is you who will be remembered in future history books.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you for being such a great ally, for co-hosting the first all-trans panel with me in the previous Parliament, which gave trans people a voice, and for also co-hosting events with me during lesbian visibility week. Our collective efforts can, do, and will continue to make a difference. By standing together, advocating for change and supporting organisations that champion LGBTQ+ rights, we can create a more inclusive and just world for all.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate—although in writing my speech ahead of today, I could not help but feel old. We are here to debate LGBT+ History Month, and, as a woman of a certain age, I have had the stark and daunting realisation that I am so old that I am part of history.
We are all aware of the stories of now famous LGBT+ people who were remarkable in their own field, but who lived too early to enjoy the progress that we have now achieved. Alan Turing, who was mentioned earlier, springs to mind. In many senses his story is now legend. The understanding of the role that he played in protecting this country is universal. That he happened to be gay should not have mattered. Despite his service, he was chemically castrated and suffered for the rest of his life. It was absolutely correct that the last Labour Government apologised, and that Turing was pardoned in August 2014.
LGBT+ History Month is often marked and reflected through stories, and today I want to share just some of my story. I grew up in a mining town in the ’80s. The difference in the rights that I have now compared with then is striking. As a lesbian woman, I have spent my adult life fighting for LGBT+ rights. It was when fighting for those rights that I first visited this place. After many years of debate and setbacks, in June 1998, this House voted to equalise the age of consent between heterosexual and gay men. As an active member of the Unison City of Edinburgh lesbian and gay self-organised group, we had been campaigning for many years to end this discrimination. The Unison archive reminded me that our branch wrote letters to all Scottish MPs and MPs who had a link with our union—it was 320 in total. On the day of the vote, two of us came to this place to lobby MPs in person to vote for this historic change.
The next big fight for our rights in which I was actively involved was the repeal of section 28, or section 2A in Scotland. As someone who worked in local government and who had a same sex partner with children, I saw the damage that section 2A did every single day. The Act meant that teachers and youth workers could not provide support to children of same sex partners, or LGBT+ young people. It resulted in many public sector workers, particularly those in educational settings, feeling that they could not come out in their own workplace. Essentially, the law said that households, such as the one in which I was living, were just wrong.
When the Scottish Executive announced that they would repeal section 2A, there was a considerable and, at times, vile campaign against its removal, much of it financed by Brian Souter. Souter wanted to bankroll a private referendum and campaign for people to vote no. There were billboards across Scotland opposing the repeal. One billboard was on Ferry Road, one of the main bus routes through my home in the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. I will never forget having to take David and Zoe to school on a bus and passing a sign that said that our family was not a real family. I cannot put into words the anger that I felt because of the worry that it created for me, the kids and their mum. Thankfully the people of Scotland rejected the buying of democracy by Brian Souter and the referendum never happened.
A few years ago the Scottish Trades Union Congress commissioned a book celebrating 125 years of trade union successes in Scotland, and, as a contributor, I wrote about this struggle. In the book I said:
“An overarching worry for the general public was that Souter was trying to bankroll this referendum and campaign. People did not want private, rich people to be able to buy democracy.”
I know that my constituents still hold this view.
The following decade and a half brought significant improvements to the rights of LGBT+ people in Scotland and across the UK. I look forward to reflecting on one of those rights in a few weeks’ time when I celebrate my first wedding anniversary with my wife.
In closing, the struggle for LGBT rights has been fought in workplaces, in our communities, in our families and across this House for decades. We have had many successes but, sadly, some people still live in fear of their lives because they love someone of the same sex.
In this place, we must continue to fight to ensure that everyone is able to love who they wish regardless of where they are born. My hope is that, very soon, people across the world will have the freedoms that I enjoy here in the UK today.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) must have been thinking the same way as me when she wrote her speech, because, for me, LGBT History Month is always a time to reflect on the past and, at 47, I have a fair bit of past on which I can reflect.
Growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, I was all too aware of the challenges of HIV and AIDS. Many will remember that terrifying TV advert, the public health campaign, that was regularly played out on television. The reality was that it was a terrifying time, as there was no cure and no real treatment. AIDS was a death sentence. This in itself led to a stigmatised perception of the gay community in particular, because, as we all know, they were disproportionately affected by the disease.
Dr Nick Phillips, my lecturer at performing arts school, was the first person I met who had AIDS, and this was in 1996. Nick had been well known in the ’70s and ’80s for his performances with the famous Bloolips cabaret troupe, and he had performed extensively both here in the UK and in the US. It was his stint in the US that tragically saw him become one of the first people to catch HIV, as, unfortunately, did many of his friends. About eight years ago, I saw Nick do a touching solo performance, in which he portrayed the heartbreak of this period for him, losing so many friends while dealing with his own potential mortality.
Despite there being no treatment, Nick miraculously survived when many did not, and he is still around today to tell the tale. When I first met Nick and became a close friend of his, I had to overcome my own prejudice—touching him, hugging him, or giving him a peck on the cheek. I was one of many in the 1990s who were still absolutely petrified of this uncurable illness. But Nick helped me see that it did not have to be a death sentence. It also meant that I could not catch it by just giving him a hug.
I remember Nick getting really ill in 1997 and ending up in hospital. He was one of the first to receive the experimental treatment of combination therapy, and it worked. Nick went on to compose the touching “Red Ribbon Requiem”, which was performed by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. Today, he has demonstrated just how far treatment has come, living a normal, healthy life and having naturally fathered two lovely twin boys.
Fast forward to 2020 and a really close friend of mine sat me down to tell me that he had HIV. My immediate reaction was despair. I thought that I was going to lose him, that he had that death sentence. But he laughed at me and said, “Don’t worry, my levels are already now undetectable.” This was because of the wonderful medication that he was taking. As long as he keeps taking it, he will go on to live a normal life.
Today, more than 30 HIV medications are available. Many people are able to control their HIV with just a single pill a day. Early treatment can prevent HIV-positive people from getting AIDS, and the diseases that it causes, such as cancer. HIV drugs also stop people who have the virus passing it on during sex. We still do not have a cure for AIDS, but with the right treatment, people who are HIV-positive can have a normal lifespan, but we must remember that HIV and AIDS does not just affect the LGBTQ+ community. It does not discriminate, like those who have been victims of the virus have been discriminated against in the past.
While most people have caught the disease from unprotected sex, regardless of their sexuality, others have contracted it from infected blood, from their parents during pregnancy, from sharing needles or from being horribly raped. I fully support the Labour Government’s new HIV action plan to end all new HIV cases in England by 2030. I am pleased that there is a cross-party consensus on that. The powerful image just this week of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom publicly taking an HIV test on camera was wonderful. I took my test too, and I encourage everybody to do the same.
As we look to the future, with this Labour Government introducing greater protections for the LGBTQ+ community, such as the trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and righting the wrongs done to LGBT veterans, we would think that we would have reason to celebrate, but as others have said, we must be aware that, among some, the narrative is shifting. We have seen our trans community under attack, being made to feel non-existent. Around the world, we have seen those in power in countries that we normally consider progressive rowing back on LGBTQ+ rights.
We sadly even hear such rhetoric coming out of this place. This week, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have given him notice—stated that he would sack every DEI officer in the NHS. Just this weekend, he told them on social media how much he detests their work. Let us look at this. D stands for diversity: diverse people, and people from a diverse background. E stands for equality: helping those diverse people to gain equality and feel equal. I stands for inclusion: making them feel they are included in society. How dare somebody say that they want to ban that.
We need to call these people out—those who are looking to push us back and take away our rights, making diversity irrelevant as opposed to embracing it. We are a diverse country and should embrace everybody, whoever they are. We have made huge strides forward, so please, let us not go back. I pay tribute to all the pride organisations across the country, many of which are run by volunteers, for their wonderful work in raising awareness, and creating visibility and safe spaces for the LGBTQ+ community. I particularly call attention to Basildon Pride, where I am still the chair of trustees, and the wonderful Southend Pride, which offers so much to the community. Long may it continue to do so.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister, who bravely spoke about the realities of teaching under section 28 and how she did her best to protect LGBT children in her class. I am so glad that she is now able to do so in Government. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who has always been a staunch and fearless ally, and speaks about these issues with warmth, compassion, humanity and empathy.
Today, we have seen some of the best of all parties represented in the Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), has always been a voice on these issues within the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), has long been ahead of many in this House when it comes to equalities issues, including being outspoken in support of the rights of sex workers, who must never be excluded from conversations on feminism and LGBTQ equality.
I am thrilled that we have the opportunity to discuss LGBT History Month in the Chamber for many reasons, not least because it gives me the opportunity to put on record just how gay Nottingham is and has long been. I was overjoyed to learn that Mansfield Road, where my constituency office is based, was home to queer-friendly cafés in the 1960s, and that just down the road in St Ann’s there was a flourishing lesbian pub scene. Nottingham also had a trans meet-up group all the way back in the 1970s—again, disproving the lie that trans people have only existed more recently—and people in our city were active in the section 28 protests, in fighting the AIDS crisis, and in running life-saving phone support lines. I was privileged to meet some of them at Silver Pride, a social group for older gay and bi men in Nottingham.
It is thanks to CJ DeBarra that much of that history and more is being uncovered. They have interviewed more than 150 members of our community, and delved deep into archives around the country to ensure that the history of Nottingham’s LGBTQ+ community is preserved, highlighted and celebrated. I also pay tribute to many of the groups that support and advocate for LGBTQ+ people in Nottingham today: Notts LGBT+ network, Notts Pride, the Pastel Project, Nottingham Against Transphobia, Silver Pride, the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health, Notts Trans Hub and more. Those involved are unsung heroes—often volunteers who work tirelessly to improve the lives of people in our community. They deserve huge thanks and recognition.
As well as marking LGBT History Month, this debate coincides with HIV Testing Week. I commend the Prime Minister for being the first to take a public HIV test. At the height of the AIDS crisis, that would have been unthinkable. It demonstrates just how far we have come in this regard. It is thanks to activists who have fought so hard for proper treatment and funding for research, and against ignorance and stigma, that we are where we are today. HIV is no longer a death sentence—far from it—and ending the epidemic is possible. UNAIDS has set a goal of 2030, and it is vital that our Government play their part in helping to achieve that. I welcome our commitments in this area.
Although it is right that progress is celebrated, it cannot come at the expense of recognising where we are continuing to fall short and even going backwards in some areas. Many of the struggles of the past are also struggles of the present. The LGBTQ+ community continues to face huge inequality, with trans people at the sharpest end, including higher levels of homelessness, discrimination at work and school, an increased likelihood of experiencing verbal and physical abuse, and, yes, disproportionate rates of suicide. This is not hyperbole, and recognising that sad reality is not in some way irresponsible. Life for may LGBTQ+ people is still immensely difficult.
We are living in an era of rising hate, both here and around the world, which is putting more people at risk. The state of politics on LGBTQ+ issues is appalling. Trans people have been made a political football, with their suffering almost considered a price worth paying to score political points. That makes some people feel tempted, I think, just to ignore the reality that trans people face, or to try to find some kind of so-called middle ground, but when the conversation has been dragged so far to the extreme right by anti-trans activists, the middle ground is far from moderate. History shows us that the answer is not to cede ground to the right’s framing; it is to fight back. Generations of queer activists held fast in demanding their rights, and they won them eventually.
I want to make clear, as a feminist and as a woman who is not trans, that I am proud to stand with my trans siblings. Those who claim that standing up for my rights as a woman requires rolling back the rights of trans people do not speak for me. When people with very loud voices and newspaper columns tell us that there is a conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, and that they are standing up for women, they are just not being honest. From the abuse towards women of colour competing in sport to cisgender lesbians being harassed in bathrooms, attacks on trans people endanger all women who do not fit within anti-trans activists’ ever-narrowing heteronormative and Eurocentric parameters of womanhood. Far from advocating for women’s rights, they are putting them under threat. Whether or not they realise it, they are helping to usher in the far right, who want to restrict women’s freedom and reinforce traditional gender roles.
We see time and again, for example, campaigns against trans rights and abortion rights working hand in hand, because they are part and parcel of a politics being dragged ever rightwards. Entire Conservative leadership contests have been fought on the basis of who can talk the toughest when it comes to an extremely marginalised group. The Conservative party has gone from supporting gender recognition reform under the May Government and promising to outlaw conversion therapy, to outright opposing the first and coming up with excuses to allow the second to continue.
I am extremely sad to say that my party, too, has been dragged in the wrong direction. Our policy on trans issues is worse now than it was in previous years. That is the wrong approach. Our party must completely reject the tired narrative that trans people are a threat, which underpins so much of this moral panic. It was not true about gay men in the ’80s and it is not true about the trans community now. Our approach must centre on trans people themselves and their humanity. We must stand against bigotry and for human rights, and deliver material change, such as a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban; the reform that we have promised in the gender recognition process; proper access to gender-affirming healthcare to trans people of all ages, including by ensuring that everybody who needs puberty blockers has access to them; the creation of inclusive schools; and the expansion of affordable housing.
LGBT history is not just in the past; it is being made every day. Labour is now in government, and we must decide what role we want to play. Thanks to years of campaigning by LGBTQ+ people, previous Labour Governments took important strides in equalising the age of consent, repealing section 28, and legislating for civil partnerships, adoption rights and gender recognition. The future of the next generation of LGBTQ+ people will be shaped, in part at least, by our party. That generation will judge us on our record. We still have time to make it one to be proud of.
I want to speak directly to them—to LGBTQ+ youth. I know that for so many of you, life is really hard and your future feels uncertain. There is no doubt that this chapter of history, and the direction in which the world is moving, often feels dark, but you are not alone. There are so many people who love and not just accept you but celebrate you for who you are, both within our LGBTQ+ community and outside it. Our history is one of struggle, but not every chapter has been bleak. We have faced down bigotry and won rights. Throughout it all, queer joy has always co-existed. A better world is possible, and I hope that one day the need for struggle and the feelings of darkness will have gone and that our joy is all that remains. Until then, we will keep fighting.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate marking LGBT+ History Month. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome).
One of my predecessors as MP for Scarborough and Whitby, Paul Latham, who was the MP from 1931 to 1941, was imprisoned for two years after being arrested for “improper behaviour” while serving in the Royal Artillery during the second world war. His story is a case study of how so often LGBT+ people have been hidden from history as they faced prejudice, persecution and, in the case of men who were gay, prosecution. Paul Latham’s arrest drove him to try to end his life, which resulted only in a charge of attempted suicide being added to that of indecent conduct—a very sad story, but hardly exceptional.
The post-war period saw a sharp rise in the number of prosecutions in Britain for homosexual acts, with the fine for a first offence being the equivalent of £700 today and second offences punishable by a sentence of one to five years on average. Thankfully, in 1967, the then Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins provided parliamentary time for Leo Abse’s ten-minute rule Bill to decriminalise homosexuality through the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Of course, there was still a long way to go to full equality.
Even as fairly recently as 1980, Scarborough town council refused permission for the Campaign for Homosexual Equality to hold a conference in the town—something that damaged not only Scarborough’s reputation at the time, but its tourist trade. The success of today’s Scarborough Pride is therefore all the more welcome and is cause for celebration. Of course, there are other Pride events in nearby York and Leeds, but it is important for the community in Scarborough to be visible, which it is at Pride, with over 3,000 people taking part since it restarted in 2023.
I have taken part in both joyous parades, joining the Scarborough and Whitby Labour party carrying its splendid LGBTQ+ banner, along with my dog Tarka, resplendent in her rainbow neckerchief. The parade winds its way cheerfully through the town centre and along Foreshore Road towards Scarborough Spa where the festivities continue with fabulous performances, stalls and delicious food—of course, Tarka particularly appreciates the latter. Local businesses along the route decorate their shops and windows, putting pride flags out to show their support, with the whole town getting into the spirit of the event. It is a fun day, but it also helps combat the feelings of isolation that LGBT+ residents feel, and it has an educational value, breaking down barriers through family-friendly entertainment, so that future generations of the community will not have to experience the prejudice that older members have. McCain Foods, a major local employer, has gone above and beyond to support the event, but—as is the case for so many other charities—funding has been a struggle for the organisers, who all give their time for free. I pay tribute to those wonderful volunteers. I know that Scarborough Pride would welcome offers of support for this year’s Pride, which takes place on 13 September, celebrating inclusivity, diversity and love on the Yorkshire coast. Of course, further up the coast in Whitby, we enjoy a massive outpouring of love and acceptance twice a year as hordes of splendidly costumed goths visit the town in April and October.
However, as we have heard in the House today and as we know from our own experiences, the LGBT+ community continue to suffer from abuse and discrimination. A brilliant exhibition of photos from last year’s Scarborough Pride is running at Scarborough Art Gallery as part of LGBT+ History Month, but sadly, the comments section of a Yorkshire Post article about that exhibition has had to be switched off because of the vile nature of many of the posts. We have seen so much progress, including legislation to introduce civil partnerships and allow same-sex couples to adopt children, the equalisation of the age of consent and the repeal of section 28, all under the last Labour Government. That was followed by the right of same-sex couples to marry under the coalition Government, and I am so pleased to see this Government taking action to right a historic wrong and compensate LGBT+ veterans who were dismissed from the armed services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Defence Secretary has called this
“a moral stain on our nation.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1103.]
An honest look at history means confronting the prejudice and often brutal treatment that LGBT+ people have suffered in the past and continue to experience. It means facing the fact that progress has not been smoothly linear, but a case of stops and starts, in which each step forward has had to be fought for bravely so that people can be who they really are without fear. As the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby and a proud ally of the LGBT+ community, I am committed to playing my part in the push towards progress—towards a future in which our children can live their lives free from judgment and discrimination, and can be their best, brightest and authentic selves.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
It is a huge privilege to speak in this afternoon’s debate. There have been so many wonderful contributions, and I thank all colleagues for them.
The question that I think I have been asked the most since I became an MP is, “Why did you want to get into politics? Why did you decide to become an MP?” I am often asked that by groups of A-level students or by kids in schools, and the honest answer is, “Because I know that politics changes lives, because it has changed my life.” I grew up under section 28, feeling like who I was, was something to be ashamed of. When I was 16, people in this place scrapped section 28 so that my school could no longer deny my existence. When I was 17, they passed a law to allow civil partnerships and give me belief that I could have a relationship that was viewed as equal. When I was at university, they passed the Equality Act 2010, which outlawed discrimination against me, and then when I was 26, I embraced my now wife in Parliament Square as equal marriage became law. It is because of all those things that today, my wife and I have two wonderful children and the love and respect of our families, and I am able to stand here today as a proud lesbian MP.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate for LGBT+ History Month. The debate is an important chance for us to reflect on our history and the brave pioneers who have come before us, and it has been wonderful to hear many of their stories today. However, I want to use my speech to celebrate not those who have achieved prominence, but everyday people who have persisted—who, in living their lives and having the courage to be themselves, are the reason we have made the progress we have. The real challenge for every LGBT+ person is not a battle with their career or their personal ambitions; the real battle each and every one of us faces is a battle with shame. When you are told that you are disgusting or when you are told that there is something wrong with you, it eats at you—it eats at your very sense of self.
Every time in our history that an LGBT person has steeled their nerves and held hands in the street, every time they chose to tell a colleague or friend the pronoun of their partner or chose to express their gender, and every time they chose love over fear, they showed an almighty act of strength. It is the most powerful political act there can be—an individual act of defiance, of courage —and today we stand here because of each and every one of them.
We have achieved so much as a community, but I want to conclude by reflecting on the work still to do, and the importance that this Government place on advancing LGBT+ rights, because our journey is not complete when there is still so much hate towards gay and trans people, while conversion practices still take place and while our gender recognition laws remain out of date. That is why I am so proud that this Government will deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, make LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence and modernise the law on gender recognition.
The best way to honour the LGBT+ people who have, throughout history, fought for our rights, often at great personal cost, is to never be complacent, to link arms as a community and to make it our solemn mission to ensure that Pride is not just our protest against the pernicious effects of shame, but something felt freely by every LGBT person finally allowed to just be who they are.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak, as a lesbian MP and as co-chair of the now very large parliamentary Labour party LGBT+ group, on what is the 20th anniversary of LGBT+ History Month.
LGBT+ History Month was first celebrated in 2005, but I first came to this country well before that—in the early 1990s—and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, it was a very different place from what it is now. We were a community ravaged by the HIV epidemic that killed so many people and so many young people, but in a cruel twist, LGBT+ people were blamed for the very epidemic that was killing us. This led to section 28 —that pernicious Conservative law that put teachers in fear of being sacked if they even acknowledged our existence, and left many LGBT+ kids alone and often bullied mercilessly at school.
On the streets, LGBT+ people were in fear of their lives. In 1990, in my own constituency of Ealing Southall, Michael Boothe was kicked to death by six men in Elthorne park in Hanwell simply because he was gay. Both the stigma of HIV and the chilling effect of section 28 kept so many people in the closet, living lives they could not be honest about for fear of the consequences. They were unable to be open to their own families, and always fearful of being outed, of being beaten up and of losing their ability to earn a living. In the 1990s, people could be sacked from their job just because of who they loved. As unreal as it now seems, you could even be refused service by a shop, a hotel or a restaurant because you were gay. There was no law against it.
How life has changed since then! The last Labour Government transformed LGBT+ people’s lives. We repealed section 28, we lifted the ban on LGB people in the military and we equalised the age of consent. We outlawed discrimination against LGBT+ people in society and in the workplace. We gave LGBT+ people the right to adopt and to access NHS fertility treatment. We brought in tougher sentences for anti-LGBT+ hate crimes, with the first ever conviction for homophobic murder in the case of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham common. We introduced civil partnerships, giving same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. We changed the law to finally acknowledge trans people’s rights to live their lives, and one of Labour’s final acts in government was the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010.
Labour built a more equal society but since then progress on LGBT+ equality has been painfully slow or has gone backwards in many respects. Anti-LGBT+ hate crime soared to record levels under the last Conservative Government, which comes as no surprise given that they demolished neighbourhood policing in this country. They slashed funding to local councils so that life-saving services for young LGBT+ people—like youth clubs and libraries, and specialist housing and sexual health workers—were cut, and they fanned the flames of a toxic debate about trans people’s right to exist.
It has taken a new Labour Government to pick up where we left off and restart the work that is still needed to ensure equality for LGBT+ people. We are righting the wrongs of the past by paying compensation to those sacked from the armed forces for being LGBT+. We are rolling out opt-out HIV testing, with the Prime Minister himself taking a test on camera this week. And we have opened the first of six new trans healthcare hubs.
It is still too easy for employers to sack an LGBT+ worker but pretend it was nothing to do with discrimination. So Labour’s Employment Rights Bill introduces a new day one protection against any unfair dismissal, which should make it harder for employers to get away with discriminating. Our plan to end zero-hours contracts will help stop young and low paid LGBT+ workers being denied work because of who they are. LGBT+ workers often have to come out to their employer when asking for time off, but the Employment Rights Bill introduces a new day one right to bereavement leave and a default right to flexible working, both of which will make it easier for LGBT+ workers to get what they are entitled to without having to tell their life story to their employer.
The Minister has confirmed she will reform outdated gender recognition laws and will soon be coming forward with inclusive plans to outlaw conversion practices, a promise repeatedly made by the last Conservative Government but which they again and again failed to deliver. Labour will finally stop this licensed abuse of LGBT+ people.
As part of our plan for change we will be modernising healthcare for trans people and we will be putting a specialist mental health professional in every school. We are also rolling out Young Futures hubs in every community, bringing back those youth services. This Labour Government will also put neighbourhood police back on our streets and make LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence.
LGBT+ History Month is a time to celebrate everything that has been achieved but also to acknowledge the work still to do to win true equality. This new Labour Government will transform LGBT+ people’s lives again, just as we did before, and our plan for change will rebuild the NHS, the police and the education system that we all need, whether we are LGBT+ or not.
Mims Davies
It is a privilege to close the debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I thank the many Members who have contributed this afternoon, I thank Mr Speaker for his recent reception celebrating LGBT+ History Month, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all you do in this space.
We have had an important and wide-ranging debate, and I apologise because many of my colleagues have been attending the debate in Westminster Hall so there are not as many of us here as before. That is slightly troubling, but I am sure some people are pleased about it.
In last year’s debate I was particularly struck by the words of my former colleague and dear friend, the former Member for Carshalton and Wallington, Elliot Colburn.
He said:
“LGBT+ people have always existed; we did not just pop out of the ground in the 1960s and 1970s and start marching through the streets of London and other cities.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 393WH.]
That has struck me strongly this year. I say to him and Jed that their engagement was the best night ever. The former Member for Sutton and Cheam, Paul Scully and I had a brilliant evening, and we are still waiting for that wedding.
I agree with the Minister that under-40s do not see or feel any difference. That has been roundly celebrated in the Chamber this afternoon. In rejecting and, frankly, moving on from the culture wars, we must all keep compassion, safety, fairness and equality for all at the heart of this debate. If we do that this LGBT+ History Month, we will do the debate justice. It is a pleasure, as I have said, to speak on my party’s behalf.
The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) spoke about the importance of allies, and that is extremely important. The Minister talked about Fast Track Cymru and welcomed that work. There has been lots of huge and ongoing work that, if we all put every sinew to it, makes such a big difference. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted that it is far from weak for someone to show who they really are and to be visible, and that the friendship that our LGBT+ trans community friends give us is wonderful. They are heroes to us, and the best nights out are with our LGBT+ friends. As a heterosexual woman of a certain age in the gayest Parliament in the world, I think it probably explains my ongoing single status and why I have such a good time.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about the work of the many individuals who continue to stand up and help those friends, constituents and colleagues to come forward. The difference that allies make will never change. I absolutely agree with the point she made that furthering causes by putting individual safety at risk is extremely unhelpful, and rights are not a zero-sum game. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) spoke about the work that she has long done in this area and the importance of recognising that families come in all shapes, sizes and forms. As a single parent for not far off the last decade, I think there is still much stigma around what a family looks and feels like. We all need to keep working to tackle that.
The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke about the incredible Nick, and I think we would all love to meet him. The hon. Member reflected on those living with HIV and AIDS losing friends and facing their own mortality, which was extremely powerful, but he also mentioned the power of hugs, and hugs for all do make everybody feel better. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) spoke about bravery, and she absolutely is a brave Member. She is always happy to speak on what she truly believes in, and that is all we can ask for in this House. All power to her.
The hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) talked about linking arms, and I love that. That is such a powerful image for us. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) spoke about Pride events and the opportunity to feel part of something bigger and to tackle isolation and loneliness. I am proud that our party brought forward the first Minister for loneliness. I, alongside the wonderful former Member of this House, Tracey Crouch, had that role. What a brilliant, amazing, globally recognised role it was. Those Pride marches are a great opportunity to break down isolation and loneliness.
I have a couple of points for the Minister. On the Conservatives’ amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we think it is important, as I highlighted earlier, that parents, loved ones and carers can view what is going on in the classroom in RSHE. The Minister shared her challenges in the classroom. I wonder whether, had she had parental support back then and been able to share those materials, life would have been easier. I reiterate to parents, carers and loved ones that if we want to have true understanding, true discussions and conversations at home matter equally.
I urge the Minister to work with me to help stand up for women on the women’s health strategy. It is right that we are focused on equality and fairness for all. I hope that she, in her position on behalf of all women—whatever their sexual orientation—can be clear that we should have that focus, because women’s health needs are different. We can be fair, promote equality for all, protect our children and focus on liberty, but we must ensure that women’s health is at the heart of that. As I said earlier, some of the strongest and truest Conservative beliefs are freedom and opportunities for liberty and equality. They should always be at the heart of the discussion.
I mentioned some of my party’s milestones. Back in 2013, the Conservatives funded the first ever HIV testing campaign for black, Asian and minority ethnic people, which was extremely important. In 2019, our party elected the most openly LGBT+ MPs of any party—that might have been superseded in these last few months—and this legislature was recognised as having the most LGBT+ Members in the world, which is quite amazing, really.
Under the Conservatives we saw a reduction in HIV diagnoses of 73% by 2021. In the same year, the number of people with HIV living beyond the age of 50 hit an all-time high, and one of the highest figures in the world. In 2021, we introduced the HIV action plan, which needs to be updated by 2030, to end new HIV infections. In 2022, people with HIV but no detectable virus were rightly able to join the military and fully deploy on operations. In 2023, barriers to accessing IVF were removed for lesbian couples, as they were in 2024 for those living with HIV.
I say to young people listening and watching that this debate is an important reminder of why months of celebration like LGBT+ History Month are really important. An awareness of history assists us all in our understanding while all communities in this country and those around the world look to us. I tell young people not to be afraid to be themselves. They should know that they will thrive when they are themselves. I say as their Member of Parliament, or as an ally to them: we are here for you to reach out to and to listen to you.
As we Conservatives believe that love is love, I am proud to stand up for women’s rights and for all equal rights. We can all continue to do that positively in this place and elsewhere in the spirit in which the debate has rightly been held. All our constituents need that.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank all hon. Members for the constructive debate that we have had. I thank in particular the spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for her excellent contributions. She reminded us that the theme for this LGBT+ History Month is activism and social change. She paid tribute to Alan Turing, as other hon. Members did, and reminded us of her party’s achievements in government and the progress made there. She—very helpfully—gave her full commitment to ending the transmission of HIV infections by 2030. We welcome that cross-party support.
The hon. Lady asked about the relationships, sex and health education guidance. The Government are engaging with stakeholders including parents, teachers and pupils to discuss the draft guidance on RSHE and gender questioning in schools and colleges, and drawing from available evidence, including the Cass review, to finalise the guidance. We are taking the time to get this right and considering all available evidence alongside the consultation responses before setting out the next steps. It is absolutely good practice for schools and governing bodies to share their RSHE policies with parents.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Minister for chairing an excellent roundtable yesterday through the all-party parliamentary human rights group. The key message we heard from human rights campaigners from east Africa and global organisations was that we are experiencing LGBT history right now in the cuts to US Government funding being forced out by insidious transnational anti-rights campaigns. The call for the UK to step in and fill the gap left by the US Government was very clear, and I hope the Minister will be taking that forward.
Dame Nia Griffith
Absolutely. We have committed £40 million to those very aims. We will be stepping up to the mark with both our financial commitment and our leadership on the international stage.
We also heard from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I thank her for her excellent work, and particularly for undertaking some very difficult discussions. I will certainly refer the discussions and evidence sessions on puberty blockers that she has enabled to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.
Like many other Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also mentioned Labour’s proud achievements. However, I know she also wants to ensure that we keep to our manifesto commitments, and I know she will not allow any backsliding on this. I can give her that assurance—in the same way that my colleague, the Minister for Women and Equalities, did yesterday—that we are absolutely on track to bring forward a draft Bill on conversion practices, delivering a fully trans-inclusive ban that will provide safety for LGBT+ people subject to those practices. That draft Bill will then have the opportunity to go through pre-legislative scrutiny.
The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), told us about LGBT history in Scotland and the progress from a very hostile environment to a much more accepting environment now. She also reminded us that in this recent toxic debate, especially in respect of trans people, it is very important that we stick together. This is an important fight for us all, and we must take it very seriously. She particularly mentioned helping schools and businesses to tackle bullying, which is a fight we can never, ever stop fighting—no matter how much we do, there is always a danger of backsliding on such things, and we all need to be aware of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) was quick to remind us how proud she is of her diversity and of the importance of activism in stopping attitudes backsliding. I was sorry to hear of the unfortunate happenings after the Pride march in her home town last year, and I very much hope that this year things will be better. I am glad to hear that people are fighting back and facing down that hostility. She also mentioned tackling the increase in hate crime, especially transphobic hate, and the pride she has in the fact that we are introducing the conversion practices ban and our HIV action plan. She mentioned her work at the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to her huge efforts there and to the work she is now doing on puberty blockers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) told us of her activism, particularly in Unison, in respect of equalising the age of consent and the impact of section 2A in Scotland, the section 28 equivalent in England and Wales. She mentioned the many successes of her campaigns, but said that people are still living in fear and that there is still much to do, particularly internationally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) gave some very difficult reflections on the early ’80s and the fear and stigma of HIV. He talked about the progress made on a range of treatments, reminded us that HIV is much wider than just the LGBT+ community, and said how much he supports our HIV action plan. Again, he was worried about rowing back on LGBT rights and the attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion. As he says, we should all embrace diversity—he is so right—to make the most of our talents, and to do the most good socially and economically. Of course, we have now named the office in government taking care of these responsibilities as the Office for Equality and Opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked about how far we have come, but that there are still huge difficulties, especially for trans people. She talked about homelessness, suicide rates and how trans people have been used as a political football. She very clearly stated that as a woman she sees no conflict between standing up for women’s rights and standing up for trans people. She rightly pointed out that attacks on trans people are from some of the very same sources that very happily attack women’s rights, so we should not think that there is a conflict between standing up for women and standing up for trans people. Again, she made a very strong call for action and said a better world is possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) made reference to the very sad story of her predecessor Paul Latham. She mentioned the historic achievements we have made since then, and I also loved her description of her dog in its rainbow outfit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) told us about the power of Parliament in increasing LGBT+ rights, but also about the power of ordinary LGBT+ people living out their lives, confronting the shame that very often they had to face down, and standing up and being visible. Again, she said that we should never, ever be complacent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) contrasted the London she came to many years ago—I will not say how many—with the Labour achievements since, but mentioned the slowdown in progress, and the worry about progress going forward and the need to stand up for LGBT+ people. She mentioned the Employment Rights Bill, which does so much for the rights of all our workers.
I draw the attention of the House not just to the achievements of the past, but to the opportunities of the future. As I said very clearly, we will publish draft legislation outlining a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are committed to changing hate crime legislation to bring parity of protection for LGBT+ people and we are determined to regain our place in the international arena as an example of progress, not decline. As history shows us, progress is not static. New challenges will always emerge and hard-won rights must not only be cherished but guarded. That is why the Government are committed to upholding Britain’s long-standing record of protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that the Equality Act protects everyone. But there are others who would gladly reverse that, returning us to a time when discrimination was permissible, even empowered, under the law. We must be ever mindful of such intentions and remember from our history why we do not wish to revisit such times. Lawful discrimination, section 28, vilification and rejection by wider society are history, and they must remain such.
Whenever LGBT+ people have faced ingrained hostility or a rising tide of persecution and vilification, we have met it with bravery and resolve. We must remember these lessons, and apply them to the times. Progress is not inevitable—it must be fought for—and that struggle continues, one in which we must all play our part to ensure that we move forward and never back.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Eligibility Criteria
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
People with respiratory illnesses, such as my constituent Jane Wessman, benefit greatly from receiving the free respiratory syncytial virus vaccine and also the shingles vaccine. The arbitrary decision to end eligibility for these vaccines at the age of 80 has a profound effect on those who need it the most. Accordingly, my constituent and others would like to see the age barrier lifted and the vaccines continuing to be available after the age of 80.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the Government take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that extending the eligibility criteria for the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine and the Shingles vaccine dose to individuals who are 80 years of age or older would bring considerable health benefits; notes that the former illness can cause acute respiratory infection, influenza-like illness, community-acquired pneumonia and lead to death and the latter illness can caused decreased vision or permanent blindness; and notes that vaccine doses for the Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Shingles virus are recommended to all individuals 80 years of age and over in the United States of America and in the European Union.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003045]
Reform of Private Family Law Hearings
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a sad reality of life that marriages fail. It can happen for a variety of reasons, and I do not seek to provide a critique on the underlying causes in today’s debate. However, one of the tragic consequences of divorce is the disruption and pain that it causes to children.
It is evident that an amicable relationship between parents would enable arrangements in respect of where a child resides following a divorce to be made without the intervention of the courts, avoiding much additional heartache and the adversarial nature of contested hearings; but such contested hearings cannot be avoided in each and every case. While it may be the intention of the system to protect the privacy of individuals and families during these hearings, the reality is an increasingly inefficient and, at times, unresponsive system that fails to place the emotional and psychological needs of the parties at its centre. The flaws in the present system are regrettably clear for all to see, and in failing to address them, parties are left with a system that undermines the very values that it seeks to uphold—values such as fairness and natural justice, with the wellbeing of children at their core.
This is such a vast topic that it would be inconceivable to address all the issues in the course of an Adjournment debate, and I will therefore focus on the constitution of those on the bench who hear child arrangement order cases. The reason is simple: the anchor point in all family law cases involving a child should always be that child’s best interests, and the creation of an outcome that supports and promotes the child’s safety and emotional and psychological wellbeing and protects his or her future prospects.
It is almost inevitable that each and every Member of this House will have had experience of child arrangement orders in some way, shape or form, whether through constituency casework, personal experience or family and friends, because such cases are sadly far from rare.
If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell the story of one such case, which I suspect will resonate with many up and down the country, because it is sadly an all-too-familiar experience. This is the story of a young child who, by virtue of their age, cannot fully articulate their wants or desires, whose loyalty is split in two, who does not want to be seen to betray either parent, who is already dealing with their world being turned upside down and whose future is decided in a sterile magistrates court, often as a mere timetabling exercise. That child now faces birthdays, Christmas and Easter all split in half, with weeks cut in two and weekends alternating between one household and another, leaving them with no sense of oikophilia—the love of home. This is a child who feels different from their classmates because they are forced to go to school with their overnight bag; a child who constantly lives with the anxiety of turning up to school without their sports kit because it is at the other parent’s house; a child who feels nomadic, often confused and invariably distressed.
The scale of the problem can be seen starkly in the figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. As of 31 August last year, there were 16,671 open private law children’s cases involving 25,670 children. In the first quarter of 2024, the average time for such cases to reach a final order was some 44 weeks. During that period, children are left with uncertainty.
Magistrates have formed an integral element of the England and Wales legal system since the 12th century and the reign of Richard I, who appointed the first keepers of the peace. Almost 200 years later, pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, the term “justice of the peace” was formally introduced. I do not propose reform of the role of magistrates lightly. However, I have reached the view that there is an overwhelming policy argument for doing so.
I am not for one moment suggesting that magistrates do not have an important role to play in the justice system; self-evidently, that would be a fallacy. However, I am increasingly convinced that the nature and focus of their work should be reconsidered, and in the case of child arrangement orders, it is my overwhelming view that the magistrates court should no longer play a role. The reason for mounting this argument is simple: there is an inequality in our legal system when it comes to private law family cases. These are cases that decide the nature and degree of contact a child has with each parent, determine the long-term future of a child and, by their very nature, have a significant, lasting impact upon any child.
Presently in this country, private law children’s cases can be heard before a bench of three magistrates or a district judge with a family ticket. Magistrates are a lay bench who, well-meaning as they may be, are not required to hold any formal legal qualification. While magistrates undergo some specific training following their appointment, it is not more than a handful of days a year. In comparison, a district judge hearing such cases undergoes much more rigorous training and must have a law qualification as a prerequisite. The stakes in cases such as these could not be higher. This singular, most important decision, if misjudged, can set in motion a truly devastating series of events, thereby irreversibly damaging a child and their life chances.
Let us contrast that with the role of magistrates in the criminal courts. The maximum sentence that magistrates can hand down is 12 months. Sentences beyond that are remitted to the Crown court to be heard by a circuit judge. In comparison, a decision about a child’s domestic arrangements until adulthood are frequently made by individuals with no specialist knowledge or training in family law. Furthermore, in the absence of formal legal training, subconscious bias is likely to run higher among magistrates than among members of the judiciary.
We can also take note of the approach taken by other courts in England and Wales. Specialist judges preside over employment, immigration, business and property, and social entitlement cases. Even in cases where a panel of three hears the case, it is a legally qualified, specialist judge who sits in the chair.
Given the importance of such decisions to a child’s long-term prospects, the outdated practice of magistrates hearing private law children’s cases should, in my humble opinion, be abolished. It is an inefficient and unreliable system of dispensing justice in the modern world, and it runs the risk of reaching inconsistent decisions of varying and questionable quality. Far too often, one hears of cases simply being decided as a timetabling exercise, and of a child’s weekly diary being carved up without proper thought or consideration of the impact on that child. Removing the role of magistrates in private law family cases, and ensuring that all such cases are heard by a specialist family judge, would ensure greater consistency of decision making, applying a more judicious and impartial approach.
On this most consequential of issues, we should ensure that those who preside over family cases are not only appropriately legally trained but well versed in the emotional, psychological and social factors at play. There should be much greater focus on ensuring that decision makers are trained in childhood development, domestic abuse dynamics and trauma-informed practices. The system in England and Wales is virtually unique in permitting lay magistrates to determine such matters, with most jurisdictions across the world entrusting the decision to a suitably qualified judge. In more complex cases, we should consider the use of specialised panels, as deployed in other tribunals. Such panels could have a judge as chair and suitably qualified wing members, who may include experts in child psychology. By adopting this model, the panel can take a more holistic approach to decision making.
My ask of the Minister is very simple. If we aim to create a better future for our children, if we truly believe in progress and not merely maintaining the status quo, and if we are to be believed when we talk of improving life chances for generations to come, the Minister should commit to reforming this outdated and harmful system, and ensure that all child arrangement cases are appropriately considered by a qualified judge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) on securing this important debate, and I applaud the thoughtful and considered way that he has approached a very challenging area. I think we all want to mitigate the disruption and pain that family law hearings cause to children, and he is correct to say that we all want to have children’s best interests as the anchor point in everything we do. I applaud the way that he set out his concerns.
It is well known that family breakdowns are almost always challenging. At times, disputes are unavoidable and often intense, with children caught in the middle. The family court plays a crucial role in resolving such disputes. I want to clarify that magistrates who sit in the family court are formally referred to as “lay justices”. However, for the purposes of today’s debate, I will use the term “family magistrates”, as it is more widely recognised.
The hon. Member is well aware that the family justice system in England and Wales relies on the work that family magistrates do to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society, particularly children, are protected and that their best interests are prioritised. I welcome his words about the importance of magistrates in our justice system, even though he has concerns about the role that they play in this particular area.
Although family magistrates do not have formal legal qualifications, they undergo a rigorous selection and a comprehensive training process that is provided by the Judicial College, and it is worth noting that family magistrates were involved in family proceedings long before the inception of the family court in 2014. Before that, family magistrates in the civil and county courts would sit on family proceedings and make decisions about arrangements for children. There is a long history of that in our law.
Family magistrates are recruited from the community and bring a diverse range of impartial perspectives and experiences to the court. This diversity helps to ensure decisions are fair. It is crucial that we recognise and preserve their contribution to the family justice system for several compelling reasons, especially in the light of the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in both his recent article and this debate, suggesting that family magistrates should no longer be able to make child arrangement orders. The House will know that these are family court orders that detail arrangements for a child, including where the child will live and how they will spend time with each parent. The hon. Gentleman has clearly spelled out some of the implications.
The Government appreciate the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman regarding the training of magistrates. However, we believe the existing system has safeguards in place, which I will outline to offer reassurance not only to him but to everyone listening to this debate. I am talking about the training that magistrates receive, the role of the justices’ legal adviser, and the robust protocols the family court has for allocating and reallocating cases.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality of training provided to magistrates is of a high standard. To safeguard their independence from Government, the statutory responsibility for training family magistrates rests with the Lady Chief Justice, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. These responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College, which offers a comprehensive training programme to equip family magistrates with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle the intricacies of private law children’s cases effectively. This training ensures that family magistrates are prepared to make informed decisions that prioritise the welfare of the children involved. Further information on the college’s training programme can be found on the judiciary’s website.
When sitting in the family court, family magistrates are supported by the justices’ legal advisers, who are qualified to provide advice on the law and procedures that family magistrates must follow, and who are also subject to an ongoing family training requirement. All judges, including family magistrates who hear applications for child arrangement orders, are obligated by the Children Act 1989 to have the child’s welfare as their paramount consideration and must undergo extensive training. To be appointed as a family magistrate, each individual must undertake training on determining the best interests of the child, navigating the welfare checklists, and ways of communicating with people in court, particularly where there is high conflict.
Let me emphasise and underline the role of justices’ legal advisers in assisting family magistrates in these cases. A panel of family magistrates decides cases with the presence and involvement of the justices’ legal adviser. The recent case law, Derbyshire County Council v. Marsden, confirms that these advisers play
“an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.”
Justices’ legal advisers provide essential guidance and support to family magistrates, ensuring that decisions are made with a thorough understanding of the complexities of family law, and always prioritising the best interests of the children involved.
Nor are family magistrates operating in a vacuum. They rely on assessments carried out by trained professionals for arrangement orders, prohibited steps orders and other key rulings when making arrangements for children. This collaborative approach enhances the quality of the family court’s decisions in these very sensitive cases.
Family magistrates do not deal with the most complex cases in the family court. Established rules and guidance determine the appropriate level of judiciary based on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case. Cases involving certain complexities will be immediately allocated to other tiers of the judiciary—district judges, circuit judges and, at the most serious level, High Court judges—in accordance with the issued guidance. It is like a lift that the judiciary enter at the appropriate level.
The judiciary, including family magistrates, have an ongoing duty to keep allocation decisions under review, particularly if further information is received from the parties and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The case can then be reallocated to a more appropriate level of judge depending on the complexity and the issues in the case, and that can happen in the course of proceedings. The system ensures that magistrates handle appropriate cases for which they are trained, while more complex cases are managed at a different level of the judiciary, depending on the issues in the case. The mechanism not only maintains the efficiency of the legal process, but ensures that justice is served appropriately.
Family magistrates also play an essential role in the effective functioning of our family justice system. The number of outstanding cases in the system has grown since 2018, and the average time taken for cases reached a high of 47 weeks in 2023 under the previous Government, which is similar to the data the hon. Member shared earlier. While we have taken steps to address the underlying issues, which means we are on track to reduce the outstanding caseload by more than 10%, there are still significant challenges facing the system. Family magistrates routinely deal with a number of cases about children. Removing that capacity from the system would fundamentally undermine the effective administration of justice, but more than that, the resultant delays in resolving cases would have a profound impact on the wellbeing of the children involved and on parents seeking to resolve their issues.
Furthermore, the Government remain committed to reforming private family law processes where appropriate. Just last week, the Government announced that our new pathfinder model of private family law proceedings will be extended to mid and west Wales in March and to West Yorkshire in June. It is a significant reimagining of private law proceedings, with dedicated support for domestic abuse survivors, up-front multi-agency information sharing and a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the production of a child impact report. Those proceedings allow our judges, including family magistrates, to have a much richer understanding of a family’s circumstances from the outset and ensure that parties are fully supported by professionals.
It is clear that family magistrates are indispensable in hearing private law children’s cases. Their collaboration with justices’ legal advisers, the quality of their training, the mechanisms for allocating and reallocating difficult cases and their contribution in alleviating the burden on all our judges are all critical factors that contribute to a more efficient and effective legal system. By maintaining the involvement of family magistrates in those cases, we can ensure that the best interests of our children, which are what we are all focused on, are upheld and that justice is delivered in a timely and compassionate manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
HIV Testing Week
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered HIV Testing Week.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate during National HIV Testing Week in England. Each year, the campaign funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, and delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust as part of the national HIV prevention programme in England, brings us together to raise awareness of HIV and to promote regular HIV testing, in particular among the groups most affected by HIV. It is always the way that Parliament works that this debate coincides with a debate on LGBT+ History Month, although the two subjects are so linked.
Over the Christmas recess, I was reading Alan Hollinghurst’s book “The Line of Beauty”, which brings home the fact that, at that time in the 1980s, a test was potentially a death sentence. People dreaded going for one, because of the result it might bring and the impact on their life and the lives of their family and those close to them. We have moved on to be able to say with 100% certainty that, if someone gets a positive result from an HIV test —which people can do in their own home—treatment means they can have a normal life expectancy and cannot pass the virus on. That remarkable fact is what makes this a generation that can end new HIV cases across this country.
I encourage everyone in the Chamber, across Parliament or watching these proceedings to take part in the current campaign and to order a free HIV test. I was particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister take a test and demonstrate how straightforward and lacking in process it is. Many people still think a test might involve needles and health service professionals, but a test can be taken at home with an easy-to-access kit.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Member for his excellent opening remarks. Does he agree that the Prime Minister taking that test in Downing Street highlights the issues around stigma and the fact that people can test safely within the confines of their own home, without anyone else or the glare of a clinic? It is that person and the test kit, with sample results.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, who is one of my co-chairs on the all-party group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health. She has done so much to promote this issue, particularly among difficult-to-reach groups in the black and minority ethnic community and among women, and I commend her for that. I agree absolutely: taking a test, as I have done many times, is a routine matter that, in essence, involves merely pricking a finger and delivering a small amount of blood. That can be returned anonymously, and the result comes back without anyone else being involved. Were any issues to arise from the test, the person would know that proactive and supportive contact would generally be made with them.
Normalising HIV testing is crucial if we are to find the 5,000 people across the UK living with undiagnosed HIV. Central to that is opt-out testing in emergency departments. I am proud that with parliamentary colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group, and with the help of Sir Elton John and the amazing campaigning of HIV charities, we won the case for a £20 million investment in opt-out testing in England in 2021 and for a further £20 million for expansion to 47 more A&Es in 2023.
Since its routine introduction in 2022, opt-out testing has been an incredible success in normalising HIV testing in the health sector. Across 34 emergency departments over just two years, nearly 2 million HIV tests have taken place. In its first 18 months in London, Brighton, Blackpool and Manchester, more than 900 people were newly diagnosed with HIV or were found, where they had been lost to HIV care. A further 3,000 were found to have hepatitis B or hepatitis C.
This approach also relieves pressure on the health service. Data from Croydon university hospital found that when it first started opt-out testing, the average hospital stay for a newly diagnosed HIV patient was almost 35 days. Within two years, the average stay was just 2.4 days.
I am proud that the last Government were the first to fund opt-out testing. I am also pleased that in November the Prime Minister announced further funding to extend the testing intervention period. That will bring to 89 the number of hospitals funded to routinely test for HIV anyone who has their blood taken in the emergency department.
As a Scottish MP, I want to be able to tell hon. Members how we are leading the way in addressing the HIV epidemic in Scotland, but unfortunately that is not quite the case. There are good news stories. Early action to make pre-exposure prophylaxis—PrEP—freely available on the NHS has helped to drive down new transmission of HIV in Scotland. Year round, everyone in Scotland has access to free at-home HIV testing, which is made available through the Terrence Higgins Trust testing service and funded by the Scottish Government. In 2023, a landmark campaign delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust addressed the stigma that we all know surrounds an HIV diagnosis. It is astonishing that that campaign was the first of its kind since the tombstone adverts four decades ago. I hope that that important work to combat HIV stigma continues in Scotland and across the rest of the UK; it cannot be a one-off.
However, for all this success, the reality is that progress towards achieving the historic feat of ending new HIV cases in Scotland by 2030 is now at risk. I have mentioned the resounding success of emergency department opt-out testing in England, and the role that that will play in helping to get the NHS in England back on track towards reaching zero new HIV cases by 2030. The clear evidence is that opt-out testing works, yet Scotland is still to adopt the same universal approach to HIV testing. As it stands, no area designated as high prevalence, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, is benefiting from the opt-out testing programme. I have again written to Scotland’s Health Minister, Neil Gray, to ask that that be reconsidered.
An estimated 500 people are living with undiagnosed HIV in Scotland, and a growing population of people are living with diagnosed HIV but are no longer accessing vital treatment and care. If we are to succeed in getting to our 2030 goal across the UK, we must reach each and every one of those people. Every day that emergency department opt-out HIV testing is not on offer, opportunities to find and support people living with HIV are being missed.
Although Scotland is clearly not within the Minister’s remit, I hope that she, the public health Minister and the Health Secretary will use opportunities to raise this issue with the Scottish Government and to highlight their own successes. As she may know, the Scottish Government are keen to highlight what they perceive to be health failures in England. This is a great opportunity to highlight a health success and to call the Scottish Government out on their own approach.
That also applies to HIV testing week. For this week to be most effective, it should apply across the United Kingdom, so that we can benefit from the positive publicity that came from the Prime Minister’s test. That is not available to people in Scotland, because HIV testing week is not happening there this week, despite my calls last year for it to be extended to Scotland. There is a testing week in Wales, but it is not as co-ordinated on a UK basis as we would want to see. Such co-ordination would allow everyone to benefit from promotional campaigns such as the excellent one in Parliament this week, which the Terrence Higgins Trust facilitated for Members of the House.
I very much recognise the work of Terrence Higgins Trust Scotland and Waverley Care, which I had the great pleasure of visiting at its premises in Edinburgh recently. They are doing a great job, but when we have National HIV Testing Week, it needs to be across the whole United Kingdom. Testing is the only way we know to find a person’s HIV status, and that is why the current campaign, testing week and interventions such as opt-out testing are so integral to our HIV response.
We are now five years away from 2030, and in no part of the UK are we on track to achieve our goal of ending new cases of HIV. Getting there will require cross-party working, and we have always worked cross party on the all-party parliamentary group, which has the highest number of members of any APPG in this Parliament and has been around for over 30 years. Many Members across Parliament work tirelessly in that group to ensure that we reach the 2030 goal, and I am sure the Minister will tell us more in her response about what is being done to achieve that.
I know that this is not directly within her remit, but it would be remiss of me not to mention testing in other countries. We have heard about HIV testing week here in the UK, but poorer countries rely on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and particularly the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which it funds along with the US to deliver testing and treatments. We know that the future of US funding is, at best, uncertain. This country has always been at the forefront of the Global Fund, and leadership on this year’s replenishment is important. I was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday about Gavi and vaccinations, and I hope he will be able at some point to give a similar commitment on the Global Fund. I hope all Members would agree that it would be quite wrong if we were to achieve the target in the UK, but just left poorer countries and the rest of the world to get on with it and, in fact, go backwards as a result. I make that call in relation to the wider issue.
I encourage anyone to take a test. It is very straightforward and easy, it will help to identify those we do not know about and it will help us to achieve that 2030 goal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob—as they are doing—if they wish to be called in the debate. Given the number of Members who wish to speak, and to ensure that everybody gets to say what they wish to, I suggest an approximate time limit of five minutes. We will move to the Front-Bench spokespeople at about 2.28 pm. I call Jim Dickson.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech.
We are here because of the work done by the excellence Terrence Higgins Trust, which, with the Department of Health and Social Care, runs the vital National HIV Testing Week campaign. It provides a vital staging post towards the goal, which we all share, of ending new HIV infections by 2030. This week, as the right hon. Member said, anyone can order a free postal HIV test, and I encourage anyone listening to do so. I was pleased to be able to take a test myself just next door, on Tuesday, at the excellent event run by the Terrence Higgins Trust.
I welcome the goal set by the last Government to end new HIV cases by 2030, and I am pleased that the new Labour Government have commissioned a new HIV action plan for England, which is expected to be published in the summer, to make that a real prospect as we approach 2030. As I am sure other hon. Members will agree, if we are to meet this ambitious target, it is crucial that we find the estimated 4,700 living with undiagnosed HIV in England, as well as those across the UK, and ensure that they are getting the lifesaving treatment they need and cannot inadvertently pass on the infection. It is clear that that will happen only through testing.
In my previous life as cabinet member for health in Lambeth, we worked very closely with the Elton John AIDS Foundation to introduce the world’s first social impact bond focused on bringing people living with HIV into care. We worked with a coalition of third-sector organisations across the three boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham to ensure that health settings earned outcome-based payments each time they identified someone either newly diagnosed with HIV or someone who had stopped treatment, and linked them back into care. Our brilliant GPs across the three boroughs carried out opt-out testing to accompany this set of changes. The results were dramatic: over three years, more than 265,000 people received HIV testing, and more than 460 south Londoners living with HIV entered treatment. More than 200 people received a new HIV diagnosis and attended their first treatment, and 250 who had stopped treatment returned to care.
I am proud of the work done across local government in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In Lambeth, for instance, the council has led London boroughs on commissioning of the London HIV prevention programme. We were in the forefront of the successful campaign to get PrEP provided free on the NHS for all those who needed it, and the council continues to jointly commission, with our neighbouring boroughs, work with marginalised groups to reduce stigma and thereby increase awareness of HIV and the need to take tests.
I support the Government’s aim of ending new HIV cases in England by 2030, supplemented, it needs to be said, by the Mayor of London’s great work in ensuring that the capital is a fast-track city. However, that date is only five years away and, like the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, I worry that without a dramatic increase in testing, we will not get there. I was pleased therefore that last month the Government announced an expansion of the number of hospitals carrying out HIV opt-out testing, including Darent Valley hospital in Dartford, in my constituency. I welcome the service that will be made available to my residents as a result.
I hope that the new HIV plan for England, expected this summer, will build on that expansion and bring the increase in opt-out testing we need to find all those unknowingly living with HIV. The incredibly welcome 5.4% increase in the public health grant for 2024-25—that is £200 million, which is the biggest increase for many years—will strengthen this work, alongside so many other areas in which we need to tackle health inequalities.
I would like to end by paying tribute to all the charities working so hard to tackle this issue, including but not limited to the Terrence Higgins Trust, the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the National AIDS Trust.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on bringing forward this important debate and on the work he continues to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on the APPG.
While we will spend most of this afternoon’s debate speaking about the goal to end new HIV transmissions by 2030, I feel it is important to recognise just how far we have come in our understanding of HIV and treatments for it, and in our education and awareness raising. We have seen so much progress in the fight against HIV since the 1980s crisis. Although there is still a way to go, it is through open discussions, such as the one we are having today, that we have been able to reduce the number of HIV cases in the UK down to an estimated 113,500. But it is thought that 4,700 people are unaware that they are living with HIV, and that is why it is vital that we continue to push to increase testing. We know that when caught early HIV is treatable and that the quality of life of those living with HIV is far better than it was back in the ’80s. Unknowing carriers risk not only not getting the treatment they need or getting it too late, but unknowingly infecting others. Testing is easy, quick and can save lives.
We know that testing among men who have sex with other men is high. This is incredibly encouraging, but we must do more to increase testing among heterosexual men, heterosexual and bisexual women, and the trans and non-binary community. The stereotype that HIV is only something that affects men who have sex with men is not true. In fact, the increase in infections in 2023 was attributed to sex between men and women, with a 35% increase among heterosexual men and a 30% increase among heterosexual women.
We should be doing more to encourage testing among all groups. That means greater investment in local and community-based public health initiatives, so I am pleased that the Government are investing in local government public health. I am particularly pleased to hear about the £38 million that is being awarded to my borough of Lambeth, which will go a long way towards supporting people with HIV, preventing HIV and funding other public health initiatives that the borough runs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the important role that councils play, and it is a crucial role indeed. They encourage testing and are well-poised to target the right communities and areas to increase awareness, and they can tailor messaging in the way that is needed. The work of local councils and community-based organisations has really helped to increase testing rates and reduce stigma. It has also helped to ensure that as many people as possible know their HIV status, and the recent round of Government funding will continue supporting that work.
I hope to see more from the Government on the international front. We must actively look to support international efforts to stop HIV transmissions, especially at a time when President Trump is running his reckless review of American aid and has put the future of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in the balance. Any credible attempt to end HIV transmission must include a global response. When it comes to ending HIV transmission, we are not an island. Ending new cases here will only last for so long if we are not contributing to efforts to end them abroad. Where the US is stepping down from efforts to tackle global HIV transmissions, we should be stepping up.
As it stands, we are already not on track to reach our target of ending new cases by 2030, but I hope that today we will hear insights from the Minister on the steps the Government are taking to increase testing and to end new cases in the UK and abroad. As I am sure other hon. Members do, I eagerly await the Government’s new HIV action plan in the summer.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time this week, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and the co-chairs of the APPG for all the work that they do.
I also echo calls from hon. Members for the funding for global work that is being shamefully cut back by the new US Government to be found from within this country. I ask the Minister to look at the pressure that is also being put on, and the funding that is being withdrawn from, wider rights-based groups, which we spoke to yesterday in a fantastic and interesting roundtable. There are many groups working in the global south to support LGBT rights and reproductive rights, which include healthcare. The impact of the cutback more widely will be on health, and we owe it to those groups to ensure that we are doing what we can to make up for what the American Government are so awfully doing.
I am pleased to join this important debate and to support HIV testing week. I absolutely commend the efforts being made by so many MPs, including the Prime Minister, to promote HIV testing. That is great to see. As an MP for Brighton, I am proud of the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust—which is partly based in my constituency, not far from my office—for making this a bigger event every year, and more and more inclusive. I recently visited THT to see first-hand the incredible work it is doing to end new transmissions of HIV, supporting people to live well with HIV, and challenging the stigma and all the things that go around that. Its work with partners in my city, like the pioneering Lawson unit at the Royal Sussex County hospital and the local HIV charity, the Sussex Beacon, is all so exciting.
Opt-out testing was mentioned. The emergency department at the Royal Sussex has been doing that testing since March 2022. It has since been rolled out nationally in areas of very high HIV prevalence. In Brighton, the team at the Lawson clinic has identified 16 new HIV diagnoses in recent years. That sounds like a small number, but the impact for each individual is absolutely massive. They are all people whose HIV will almost certainly have gone undetected up until then. All the work that is being done to normalise testing as part of a trip to A&E, when blood is drawn, does so much to reduce HIV stigma, help people, and save and improve lives.
Brighton also has some groundbreaking digital pathway work happening. The locally co-designed HIV app EmERGE has been a big success. It is a European project centred in Brighton, and I am told that people absolutely love it. There are about 720 people using it for PrEP access, appointments and support. This innovative approach has helped ease the pressure on local services and freed up about 1,000 local appointments per year. That is fantastic work, making all our money go further and helping people to cut their transmission risk without fuss and bother. That is what we all need to be working towards.
Let us be clear: zero transmission of HIV is possible by the target date of 2030. The work in Brighton that I have just described proves that. I truly believe that Brighton could be the first place in the UK to achieve that target, given the comprehensive work going on. I know that hon. Members in the Chamber are aware of all of that, and I hope the Minister will set out how a roll-out of that model across the UK will be funded.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
In order to get all Members to speak in this important debate, I gently suggest a time limit of three and a half minutes.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I will certainly try to keep to three and a half minutes.
As we mark National HIV Testing Week, we unite to promote regular HIV testing, particularly among those most affected. Despite significant progress, we are advised by the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation that, as has already been said, we are not on track to meet the goal of ending new transmissions of HIV by 2030.
The latest data from the UK Health Security Agency shows a plateau in the decline of transmissions among gay and bisexual men, and a rise in new transmissions outside of London. To reverse the trend, we must scale up HIV testing and find the estimated 4,700 people living with undiagnosed HIV in England. The Brunswick Centre in my area plays a pivotal role in this effort. Its work in providing support, education and testing services is of huge value. It offers a safe space for individuals to get tested and receive the care they need. By partnering with local communities, the Brunswick Centre ensures that everyone has access to lifesaving information and services. I join the HIV community in calling on the Government to invest in year-round online HIV and STI postal testing services, and to continue opt-out HIV testing in emergency departments.
We must also address the stigma that prevents many from seeking care. Everyone living with HIV deserves to feel safe and supported in every healthcare setting. On the issue of stigma, I commend my senior parliamentary officer and the secretariat for the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health for their outstanding work in combating stigma and educating us on the actions we must take to address this crucial issue. Together with the dedication of organisations like the Brunswick Centre, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others, we can achieve the goal of ending new HIV cases by 2030 and be the first in the world to do so. Let us make HIV testing a routine part of healthcare and ensure that no one is left behind.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Terrence Higgins Trust for partnering with the Labour African Network to host a fantastic event on Monday that highlighted why it is so important for us to continue testing, and especially to get the communities that do not often come forward to test. It was good to hear so many people at that event highlighting why that is so crucial. That was the first engagement of the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton); it was a really good event for her to attend.
I also want to highlight the visit to University Hospital Lewisham that I conducted in February 2022 to look at its opt-out testing with my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). I was struck by the age of someone that had been lost to HIV; she was an elderly woman in her 80s. That is why it is so important to test.
I thank all hon. Members for their comments and my wonderful APPG co-chair, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), for his opening speech. I want to focus my remarks on a critical issue that affects our communities: HIV and its impact on the black communities in the UK. Despite significant advancement in HIV prevention and treatment, black communities continue to face disproportionate rates of HIV diagnosis and late detection. That disparity is not just a statistic; it represents the lives affected by systematic inequalities, stigma and a lack of culturally appropriate services.
I want to highlight the work of the London HIV Prevention Programme, which is taking vital steps to address the disparities through new outreach work aimed at black Londoners. Under the banner of Do It London, that programme is designed to increase HIV awareness and encourage regular testing to provide robust support for those living with HIV. By partnering with trusted communities, it ensures that its efforts are culturally sensitive and effective.
I want to give a shout-out to Marc Thompson, the lead commissioner for LHPP. He brings his personal passion and lived experience to that initiative. As a black, queer Londoner and HIV activist, Marc understands the unique challenges that our communities face. His dedication is a testament to the importance of having voices from within the community leading the charge.
I also want to put on record my thanks to Fast-Track London, One Voice Network, NAZ, LGBT HERO, METRO, Positive East, Sophia Forum and the 4M network for the work they do to provide services not only in my constituency, but right across London. We need an approach that is informed by the communities affected. Do It London is leading the way by allowing black Londoners to shape the services designed for them.
We must also recognise that HIV is not just a health issue, but a social issue. Black communities have historically been under-represented in prevention and support. We must build trust and address black HIV services and outdated stigma. By prioritising those efforts, we can reduce HIV rates and improve health outcomes for black communities. Together we can create a service that works towards the goal of no more HIV by 2030.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on leading today’s debate. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so I make it my business to come to health debates. Indeed, I think I have missed only one debate on HIV in the 14 years that I have been here.
Health is a devolved issue, so there may be different guidelines surrounding access to testing and to testing itself, but we all have the same goal wherever we are in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England could be the first country in the world to reach the goal, but we are currently not on track, so perhaps the Minister will tell us what action will be taken to ensure that happens.
In Northern Ireland, there has been a significant increase in testing in recent years. Efforts have been made to promote early intervention and treatment. The Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland revealed that in 2023, a record 92,635 tests were conducted. Given that the population is 1.9 million, I think that is very significant. That is a 5% rise on 2022, and it is the result of a massive commitment by us—health is devolved to us—to ensure early detection.
On the other hand, the number of new HIV cases has also risen. In 2023, there were 101 cases—67 men and 34 women—which was a 41% increase on 2021. I know the numbers are small, but the percentage is quite worrying. It is alarming that some of those cases were linked to injecting drugs, so will the Minister give us some idea of how we will address that issue? It is not just about physical exchange; it is also about the use of drugs, so what can be done to stop that? Sharing a needle is a cause of HIV for some drug users, and that concerns me.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the ’70s and ’80s—I am of an age that I can remember them very well. Historically, HIV was a stigma, and it was Princess Diana who helped to take away some of that. I always remember that she met people with HIV, sat alongside them, shook hands with them and drank out of the same teacup, and that dispelled some of the concerns that people had, so we are thankful for that.
Testing for HIV of course must be discreet. There are numerous sexual health clinics across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the United Kingdom, that offer sexual health advice and testing. In addition, more discreet, self-testing kits are available, so we should be looking at some of those things.
Early diagnosis is key to ensuring that treatment can be started quicker. Treatment can reduce the viral load, which means that the disease becomes untransmissible. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned HIV in third-world countries, and I agree with their sentiments entirely. The Elim church in my constituency of Strangford deals with people with HIV in Swaziland in Africa, and a choir comes over every year to do some fundraising. Every one of those young children with lovely voices received HIV from their parents when they were young, but the good thing is that they are now HIV-free as long as they have the drugs, so there is a way of going forward.
Charities, agencies and church organisations do their best to provide support. I have seen and understand what they can do. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope she can work in parallel with her counterparts in the devolved nations to ensure that we tackle HIV together and meet our 2030 goals.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his speech and for securing this important debate. It is indeed an honour to take part in it, particularly during National HIV Testing Week, and to follow such excellent contributions from Members from both sides of the room.
I am the Member of Parliament for Cardiff West, so it would be remiss of me not to discuss the proud role that Wales has played in responding to the AIDS epidemic and providing ongoing support to people living with HIV. Indeed, the Terrence Higgins Trust gets its name from a Welshman, who once worked in this place for our friends in Hansard. It was co-founded by another Welshman, Martyn Butler OBE, and continues to be the leading charity for supporting people in Wales who are living with HIV, all without an ounce of Welsh Government funding. Without the Terrence Higgins Trust, Wales would not have an HIV action plan and its important 30 actions; without the Terrence Higgins Trust, we would not have this National HIV Testing Week, which brings us together today. So, I pay tribute to the work that the staff and advocates of the Terrence Higgins Trust do.
As has already been said in this debate, what the Prime Minister did this week has set a huge example, not just here in the UK but around the world. By taking an HIV test and destigmatising it by talking about the importance of taking it, he has used his good offices to speak to everyone in our country and around the world, taken down some of the barriers to ordering an HIV test, and let people know that these tests are available.
When the Terrence Higgins Trust polled the general public, 80% of those polled were unaware that testing at home, using a kit sent through the post, was even possible. But when offered that choice against others, home testing was by far the preferred option. Thankfully, in Wales we now have the Labour-run Welsh Government, who provide at-home self-testing kits all year round. Contrast that with England, where such kits are only available nationwide for one week of the year, or, as was said earlier, authority by authority as budgets allow.
Our friends at Public Health Wales are going above and beyond to get kits to people and providing charities, communities and pharmacy partners across Wales with take-home kits that people can send off to receive their results. This is a great innovation that others can learn from. Additionally, in my area GPs are going through their patient lists and texting people to offer tests to those who want them. The Welsh Government have also committed to funding Fast Track Cymru, in order to establish networks across all health boards.
However, one area where Wales is falling behind England is in respect of opt-out testing. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s World Aids Day announcement of £27 million in funding, over 50 accident and emergency departments in England are routinely testing for HIV and hepatitis, and that number will rise to 90 by the summer. However, not one A&E department in Wales is yet doing that remarkable and innovative work. So, I ask the Minister if she can join me in working with the Welsh Government to endeavour to change that approach.
I will finish my contribution today with a call for the Minister to unlock a UK-wide problem, namely getting PrEP available outside of sexual health clinics. In Wales, 5,157 people have been prescribed PrEP at some point since 2009, but sexual health is a bottleneck service to start PrEP. For many people, PrEP could be provided online, but for too many people in Wales it is not available online. There are rules and regulations stopping PrEP from being dispensed or even prescribed in community pharmacies. So, I ask my hon. Friend to examine this issue and to use her good offices to tear down these barriers. Otherwise, the 2030 goal will be missed.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Dr Allin-Khan, to serve under your chairmanship.
I say a massive thank you to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. I thank everyone involved in the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDs and sexual health, and every organisation that has already been mentioned today, from the Terrence Higgins Trust to the Elton John AIDS Foundation. Actually, I also thank all those small, everyday champions: people who are positive; people who have been allies of people who are positive; everyone who has worked in the bioscience sector; and everyone who has worked in the health sector. This has been a collective effort, involving thousands and thousands of people in this country, to get us to a point where we are potentially only a few years away from eradicating all new transmissions of HIV.
As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said in opening this debate, we are also in LGBT+ History Month. In the LGBT community we are used having a lot of clashes, such as Pride happening at the same time as Wimbledon and Glastonbury; we are just used to it.
This debate has put me in a very reflective mood, as did being elected to Parliament and moving from nursing into this world. I was 11 when I realised I was gay; that was in 1985. It was just as everything was hotting up around the AIDS pandemic. It was a pretty scary world to step into. By the time I was properly coming out in the early 1990s, I met lots and lots of friends, including friends and lovers who had AIDS or HIV. I spent a lot of time going to hospitals, and it was there that I realised nursing would be something that suited me. So, it was partly in response to the AIDS epidemic that I was driven along the career path that I was. I also remember the abject terror of getting early HIV tests, particularly before I became a student nurse; a positive test could have stopped that career dead in its tracks at that point.
I will not comment on the age of everyone in this room, but I think like many people in this room I have lived right the way through this pandemic. Of course, by the time I was finally diagnosed with HIV it had changed again, but that was still 20 years on. So I have lived for a long time as an HIV-positive man. There was a time in my life when friends were taking tablets that did have quite severe side effects, some of which were actually very unpleasant and led to them still suffering from HIV and then AIDS. Now, it has whittled down to one tablet a day, and as I get into my 50s it sits alongside my statins and my arthritis medication—all the other medications that we all have at a certain point in our lives. That is the difference.
Florence Eshalomi
I commend my hon. Friend so much for his passionate speech and his lived experience. Earlier this week I attended another event, and the Elton John AIDS Foundation was there. Richard Pyle, one of its directors, mentioned how great it would be if in a few years we could have an injectable form of PrEP. Does my hon. Friend think that that is the advancement we need to see to help address HIV/AIDS?
Kevin McKenna
We already have injectable forms of HIV medication, particularly for people with chaotic lifestyles. They only need to take a jab once every couple of months. It is a real way forward, which will further help us eradicate this.
I have also been reflecting on, in my nursing career, those patients I have nursed for who did not know that they were positive, who became incredibly sick. They developed AIDS without knowing they were positive, coming straight into an intensive care unit and waking up to find out that they were positive. It was a massive disruption to them and their families, and it was stigma that was driving that. People do not have to live that way; people do not have to suffer that way.
A very strong message today is: everyone, just get tested. Everyone, do it. It is absolutely fine; it is just a little scratch on the finger. There should be no stigma. You will not pass this disease on when you are treated, you will not actually suffer and, honestly, it is boring and mundane. In the community of gay men, it has been very boring and mundane for quite some time. In wider communities, just catch up with the rest of us, frankly. If everyone is tested, we will get there.
The one thing I would say to Ministers is that opt-out testing has been extremely successful. There are diseases out there such as hepatitis C that can be completely eradicated. People do not have to be on a tablet for their whole lives; the course is just a few weeks. If we can identity those people through opt-out testing, we can tackle several diseases with one effort and eliminate those as well. I would like to hear that from the Minister.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my good friend the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate.
The world is a difficult place for many in the LGBT+ community today, at a time when solidarity is necessary and progress is needed. I hope beyond hope that young people in Exeter are not experiencing what I remember as a young gay man before we made such progress under the last Labour Government.
I am heartened that schools such as West Exe school in my constituency have their own Pride celebrations, but I look with sadness at America, where I know that people who are LGBT feel under siege once again. It feels hard, but on a daily basis we remind ourselves that we are not America, we do not live there and he is not our President—in fact, we have very different leadership here. While Donald Trump is showing the example of American power, our Prime Minister is showing the power of our example. I was proud that this LGBT+ History Month and this National HIV Testing Week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took an HIV test for the world to see. Not only has that been covered on every channel here, but it has been broadcast across the globe.
Let us be clear. We must tackle HIV infections here in the UK, and this Government are taking a pioneering approach, but it is equally important to tackle infections globally. That relies on an unflinching commitment to defending and extending human rights. The global HIV pandemic has demonstrated the importance of addressing human rights violations as a central pillar of driving down HIV rates.
Studies have consistently found that HIV policies that are grounded in human rights achieve superior results over those that are not rights-based. Among gay men and other men who have sex with men, HIV prevalence is five times higher in countries that have criminalised same-sex sexual acts than in those that do not. Access to testing has improved with decriminalisation. In sub-Saharan Africa, gay men and other men who have sex with men have double the odds of ever taking an HIV test in countries that have legalised same-sex relations, compared with countries that have not.
Human rights are increasingly under attack from authoritarian Governments and otherwise democratic Governments whose elected leaders choose to vilify minority groups for political gain. That makes it all the more important that the UK Government take a global lead in advocating for human rights, if we want to reach our commitments on eradicating HIV transmission. The UK should work with other like-minded donors, including France, Canada, Germany and the European Commission, to fill some of the gaps in funding that may emerge in the global response. That means ensuring that strong commitments are made to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. On the subject of the Global Fund, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister stated in an answer just this week to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) that he has
“long supported it and will continue to support it” —[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 258.]
I am glad that the Prime Minister also said that he would “share details” as soon as he could.
The UK could help to fill the global gag gap and agree a joint plan to respond by focusing aid and diplomacy on human rights and building inclusive healthcare systems. The UK could commit to adding HIV to the agenda of meetings with other world leaders throughout 2025. That could include a meeting with President Ramaphosa on the sidelines of the Canadian G7 to agree how best to use South Africa’s G20 presidency to turbocharge prevention of HIV and AIDS. The Government could empower UK ambassadors and high commissioners to prioritise the protection of universal human rights as part of their commitment to tackling HIV/AIDS, and to global health security.
I pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust for the amazing work it does, not only in getting the Prime Minister to test, but in its efforts to get the country back on track to end new HIV cases by 2030. Imagine the victory it would be if we ended this epidemic in the UK—we would be the first country to do so. It would change many lives forever and inspire action everywhere around the world.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate and for all the work he does on this; it is very much appreciated. We have just had another successful National HIV Testing Week, and I join others in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his participation. That will be a huge boost in awareness-raising. I also thank the Terrence Higgins Trust for its work on this, and for focusing us on the 2030 goal.
My own campaigning journey started at university more than 30 years ago as we worked to fight the stigma around HIV in what was a very different era, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) so effectively outlined. Mine—ours—is the generation that came out just after the one that had lost so many to AIDS, into a world before effective treatment where so many were still losing their lives. We were, however, on the cusp of the era that now knows living with HIV to be living with a long-term condition. Yes, progress is often fraught with challenges and difficulties, but if we test people, find people who were previously undiagnosed and treat them, they will have a normal life expectancy. How things have changed.
The magnitude of the 2030 goal should never be lost on us. To be a country that ends the onward transmission of HIV is a massive task. Think about how it will change dating and relationships in this country, and think about how it might change how we treat each other. To think that we could be the first country in the world to make that happen—that would have seemed like a miracle to all my friends when I turned 18. It would show British excellence on a global stage, and it would be social justice that was impact-aligned. If we were to achieve such a remarkable goal, it would be the first time we had stopped the onward transmission of a virus without a vaccine and without a cure. We cannot afford to fail.
There is a lot that we should be encouraged by. The proposal has cross-party support, and that is welcome. I pay tribute to the previous Government, which did much to enable opt-out testing in A&Es across the country. We are all delighted to see the new Government back that up with the £27 million announced in December, which will enable this highly effective programme to take place in 90 A&Es from this summer. However, we must acknowledge that our friends in the voluntary sector must continue to reach targets with fewer and fewer resources. We all know the pressures they are under.
Compare the infrastructure for this National HIV Testing Week with what was available when Labour last left office. At that time, the Department of Health and Social Care was making available £4 million for HIV prevention in our communities. Today, the Terrence Higgins Trust and its 30 local partners run everything we see for National HIV Testing Week with just £1.1 million a year. That follows a period in which we have had a cost of living crisis and double-digit inflation. Those are impressive efforts, but they are, ultimately, not sustainable over the longer term.
It is welcome that the Department of Health and Social Care website states that the programme will be commissioned for a further two-year period, but the budget is tight, the pressures are there and we need more than two years. I understand that that is the situation that my hon. Friend the Minister has inherited, but as we get nearer and nearer to 2030, this programme cannot stop. It needs to be ramped up if we are to reach the epic goal and leave no one behind.
I am extremely optimistic about what we can achieve. I know that the Government are committed to achieving more, and I know that my hon. Friend is absolutely dedicated to that. I always like to leave things with a request to the Minister—I know they are all thrilled when I do that—so I urge my hon. Friend to look at what can be done to provide more resources and finances to ensure we hit that vital 2030 target.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on the last day before recess, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. The fact that he opened the debate is a reminder that HIV is not just an issue in our big urban centres.
In October, I visited Waverley Care’s headquarters in Firrhill in my constituency of Edinburgh South West, and I was deeply impressed by their work. Established in the 1980s, Waverley Care bravely opened the UK’s first purpose-built AIDS hospice, Milestone House, in response to the emerging HIV/AIDS epidemic in Edinburgh. Milestone House faced initial opposition, reflecting the fear and stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS at the time, which we have heard about. I have heard first-hand accounts of that, including from a former Firrhill high school pupil, who recalled visits to the centre and the subsequent backlash in the media. Work placements had to be ended because of the misleading reporting.
It pains me that, back then, some of the LGBT community found that hate was a barrier to seeking help and testing. It really pains me that today some of the trans community face the same bigotry, and for them it is a barrier to seeking testing and PrEP. We must acknowledge the courage of individuals at the time, and I include in that Councillor John Allan, who represented Oxgangs ward. He wanted the hospice to come to his ward when other councillors were doing all they could to stop it coming to theirs, so I thank him for his leadership.
The turning point in local opposition to the centre came with Princess Diana’s visit. She visited many hospices. Her simple act of sharing a cup of tea with a visibly ill young woman sent a clear signal: the patients faced death, but they were still people and worthy of our respect. I do not compare the Prime Minister to Princess Diana, of course, but what he did this week was exactly the same. We who have tested this week and are telling our constituents about it are doing exactly the same—although I have to say that it was harder to get blood out of my finger than I expected.
Since then, remarkable medical advances have transformed HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a manageable condition. Milestone House is no longer a hospice; it is a hospital. However, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale highlighted, the fight is not over. Shamefully, HIV testing in Scotland has decreased by 19% since 2019, and diagnoses are on the rise. Scotland lags behind England, lacking a dedicated HIV testing week and opt-out testing in our high-risk urban centres. The prevalence of HIV in Glasgow and Edinburgh is more than double the trigger level for opt-out testing in England, but that facility is not provided.
Waverley Care rightly highlights that while LGBT communities have strong awareness, heterosexual transmission is now the most common route, often because of lower testing rates. That is why a dedicated testing week and opt-out testing are so important in Scotland. Waverley Care, in partnership with THT, is leading the charge for opt-out testing and an HIV testing week in Scotland, and it has written to the Scottish Government. Those measures have been proven to be effective in England. Having read the testament from Waverley Care and the Terrence Higgins Trust, I cannot see how Scotland can meet its target of no HIV transmissions by 2030—it just cannot be done. I can only conclude that that is going to make it much harder for the UK Government to hit their own target. Will the Minister therefore write to the Scottish Government to make clear the benefits of an HIV testing week and opt-out testing in our big urban centres, and asking the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on his opening remarks and on bringing this debate to the Chamber.
In the UK alone, around 17,000 lives have been lost to this disease, and despite what many might think, the crisis is not over. We have seen an alarming increase in diagnoses since 2021, and between 2019 and 2023 they rose by 56%. The situation is particularly striking in London. In 2023, our capital recorded the highest new HIV diagnosis rate of any region in England, with 980 people diagnosed for the first time. A further 563 people were diagnosed after initially being diagnosed abroad. The latest estimate is that approximately 107,000 people are living with HIV in the UK, and around 5,000 of them remain undiagnosed and unaware of their condition.
Meanwhile, even though testing rates improved by 8% between 2022 and 2023, they remain 4% lower than pre-covid levels. Although testing among gay and bisexual men has reached record levels, testing rates for heterosexual men are 22% lower than before the pandemic. For women, the picture is not much better: rates are still 10% lower across the board than pre-pandemic levels.
Globally, the situation is critical. We have made significant progress—new HIV infections have dropped by 60% since the peak in 1995—but 39.9 million people were still living with HIV in 2023. Tragically, 1.3 million people were newly infected last year. If we need a reminder that the battle is far from over, that is it. The majority of new infections are concentrated in poorer regions, with sub-Saharan Africa bearing the heaviest burden. In every week of 2023, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women between the ages of 15 and 24 were infected globally, with the majority in sub-Saharan Africa. There is also a disturbing link between conflict, sexual violence and the spread of HIV. In Rwanda, for instance, the prevalence of HIV in rural areas surged from 1% before the 1994 conflict to 11% just three years later. We know that that kind of impact will be felt for generations.
The good news is that there is much we can do, but we have to get on with it. At home, dying from AIDS is no longer an inevitable outcome—indeed, organisations that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) mentioned, such as the Sussex Beacon, which serves both her constituents and mine in Mid Sussex, are now looking to reconfigure services to adapt to changing patient needs—but the alarming rise in HIV diagnoses demands stronger action to expand access to testing, treatment and education for those most at risk. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long called for equitable access to PrEP for all those who can benefit from it, but the Conservative Government’s cuts to the public health grant undermined the delivery of vital sexual health services. The Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing those cuts and investing £1 billion annually to strengthen public health programmes. Among other things, that would help to ensure that we can eliminate HIV transmissions in England by 2030.
We are campaigning for five key things: first, universal access to HIV prevention and treatment; secondly, the eradication of stigma and discrimination tied to HIV and HIV testing—I commend the Prime Minister for making progress on that this week by taking an HIV test, as many hon. Members have mentioned—thirdly, widespread testing and education about HIV; fourthly, a clear path to the elimination of transmission in England by 2030; and fifthly, crucially, the restoration of the public health grant, which was slashed by a fifth under the Conservative Government.
To tackle this problem effectively, we must also look beyond our borders. Despite being preventable and treatable, AIDS remains one of the world’s leading killers. The Global Fund has saved millions of lives, but we must keep up the momentum if we are to defeat these diseases for good. The Labour Government have reneged on their manifesto pledge, cutting spending on international aid from 0.58% to 0.5% of gross national income. UK foreign aid has been a lifeline for millions of vulnerable people around the world. Cutting back on that aid is not just a budgetary decision; it is a matter of life and death.
The Government must commit to restoring the aid budget. That is true now more than ever, for over the course of the last month, President Trump has wreaked havoc on the international development space, withdrawing funding and dismantling long-standing international institutions. The harsh reality—that the US can no longer be relied on as an effective partner in delivering support to the areas that need it most—means that the UK must step up.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I firmly believe in global solutions to global problems. We believe in the power of international development in building a more peaceful, healthy and prosperous world. Cutting foreign aid is a failure not just to support the world’s poorest, but to uphold human rights, and it does not benefit us. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, prioritising developments that help the most vulnerable and align with our strategic objectives, such as gender equality, human rights and access to HIV treatment and sexual health services. The fight against AIDS and HIV is far from over, but by working together and investing in testing, treatment, education and international co-operation, we can and will save lives.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for sharing his lived experience of this condition.
As we mark National HIV Testing Week 2025, we should be proud of the progress we have made since the ’70s and ’80s in raising awareness of the disease and reducing stigma, but we must reflect on the great challenges that remain in the battle against HIV and AIDS. I pay tribute to charities such as the National AIDS Trust, the George House Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust, whose work has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV and to improve the nation’s sexual health.
The campaign strapline for National HIV Testing Week is “I test”—a message that cannot be repeated enough. Public campaigns such as this have helped to normalise HIV testing as routine and beneficial to both the individual concerned and society at large. Testing is quick, easy, confidential and free. It is the gateway to prevention and treatment and, ultimately, to ending new HIV transmissions. During National HIV Testing Week, anyone in England can order a free postal HIV test, funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust, as part of the national HIV prevention programme for England. I encourage anyone who is concerned to get such a test and take it.
There has been encouraging progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV across England in recent years. In introducing a national HIV action plan, the last Government sought to achieve an 80% reduction in new infections by 2025. Remarkably, the UK achieved the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets back in 2020: 95% of individuals living with HIV were thought to be diagnosed, 99% of them were on treatment and 98% were achieving good viral suppression.
A growing proportion of HIV testing has been taking place by post or at home—44% in 2023 compared with 19% in 2019—which shows that the tests are acceptable to the public and welcomed by them. There has been a substantial increase in the number of tests taking place in emergency departments, with 857,000 in 2023 compared with 114,000 in 2019, mostly because of the opt-out testing introduced by the last Government.
We cannot be complacent. Although there have been areas of progress, in recent years we have seen a reversal of hard-won gains in reducing HIV transmission. Data published by the UK Health Security Agency in 2024 shows that the number of heterosexual men and women in England newly diagnosed with HIV has increased by more than 30% since 2022. Around 5,000 undiagnosed people are currently living with HIV in England.
HIV and AIDS cannot be solved in the UK without acknowledging the global context. Last year, AIDS-related illness claimed as many lives as the total of all wars, homicides and natural disasters that have ravaged our planet. In parts of southern Africa, in countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, more than a fifth of the adult population is living with HIV. Such figures remind us that the global fight with HIV is far from over.
I was troubled to hear in a House of Lords debate earlier this week that the head of UNAIDS has warned that global HIV infections could increase by more than 600% by 2029 if the US continues to suspend the UN HIV/AIDS programme. That will mean higher infection rates here in the UK, as communicable diseases do not recognise national borders.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. Does she share my concern that data and research from the Elton John AIDS Foundation shows that almost 228,000 people a day will miss out on HIV testing due to the pause in US aid? What should we do collectively, on a cross-party basis, to call that out?
Dr Johnson
The key is to ask the Government what support they will give to the UN and what conversations they are having with their US counterparts about the benefits to people both overseas and at home of ensuring that the battle against HIV and AIDS is won.
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Lady was formerly the public health Minister, so I know she cares passionately about this issue. Does she agree that HIV has to be a cross-party issue, and that both the Government and the Opposition should be calling out the US pause?
Dr Johnson
It is clear that the battle against HIV is a cross-party issue. We have seen strides and improvements over the years under Governments of different colours. Yes, I was the public health Minister, and we met at an event where I announced the results of the first year of the opt-out testing and its success in reducing infections.
HIV testing is really important. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister test earlier this week; that is helpful in reducing the stigma associated with testing. It showed that anybody in any circumstances can have a test. Opt-out testing has identified cases where people who were thought to be very low risk unexpectedly turned out to be HIV-positive. When we brought in the opt-out testing, we targeted first the A&Es in areas of the highest risk, and we need to continue to target those highest-risk areas.
In October 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care revealed that over half of those with HIV had been previously diagnosed abroad. Will the Department consider the implications of these trends when it puts together its new HIV action plan in order to achieve the goal of no new HIV transmissions in the UK by 2030? Countries such as Australia and New Zealand require applicants to take an HIV test before they obtain a visa. Have there been any discussions between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office about introducing such a requirement in the UK, as we have for tuberculosis?
Guidance from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities—the Government’s own guidance, effectively —suggests that all men and women, and recently arrived children, known to be from a country of high prevalence should be recommended a test. It might be helpful if the Government followed their own guidance, because if we test the high-risk population, we stand more chance of picking up more cases, which would be beneficial.
Under the opt-out testing scheme brought in by the Conservative Government, a patient can explicitly decline instead of explicitly accept an HIV test. It has been rolled out in many A&Es across the country, and I am pleased that it will be coming to more. It has identified hundreds of people who were undiagnosed or lost to follow-up for treatment for HIV, and includes hepatitis B and C. Identification of those cases helps the individuals concerned and helps to reduce transmission across the wider population.
Between 2019 and 2020, the estimated number of diagnosed cases in England declined. However, somewhat counterintuitively, opt-out testing suggests there are more cases than we realise. Does the Minister have plans to re-estimate the number of undiagnosed HIV cases that may be out in the community waiting to be treated, in the light of the evidence from opt-out testing? The Opposition welcome the Government’s commitment to fund opt-out testing until March 2026, but NHS services need clarity on funding beyond that point. Will the Minister clarify whether long-term funding for opt-out HIV testing will be considered as part of this year’s spending review?
HIV prevention goes beyond testing. A perennial issue is access to PrEP treatment, to maintain the reduction in HIV cases in England. PrEP has been described as a miracle drug, which prevents HIV-negative people from acquiring the virus, and is a key tool to stop new HIV transmissions by 2030. However, waiting times for PrEP are too long—at one point, they were measured in months rather than weeks. What steps is the Minister taking to improve that? The last Government improved access to PrEP across the country by setting up the PrEP access and equity task and finish group. What steps have been taken to implement the group’s recommendations since the Government took office?
We have only one Parliament left to finally eradicate new cases of HIV by 2030. We owe it to everyone who has lost their life to this virus, everyone who has faced the stigma—thankfully, that is reduced but it still exists—of being HIV-positive and everyone who is living with HIV today to end new transmissions once and for all. I hope the Government continue the progress of the last Government with their new HIV action plan, and I hope that it will be developed soon. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), said in November that the plan was in production. I hope that it is getting closer to completion and that the Minister can give us an idea of when it will be complete. I hope that today’s debate will inspire thousands of people to get themselves tested.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. This is such a marvellous debate to be part of. The Secretary of State asked me to respond to it on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who has been attending events this week and unfortunately could not be here today. I have known her a long time and I know that she will be a fantastic champion in this area, coming to the Department every day to do battle on people’s behalf.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for his continued work in this area. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) in commending the work of the APPG. I know that many hon. Members are caught in the dilemma of the two debates today, and many other people would be here, but I know that they will be listening to the debate with great interest on the fourth day of National HIV Testing Week.
This debate gives me the opportunity to thank all the amazing charities and organisations that are playing such a huge part in making this week a success—the Terrence Higgins Trust, National AIDS Trust, and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, which we have heard about today, to name just a few. I also want to add my voice to the enthusiasm I have seen in my time—nine years now—across all parties on this issue. There has been a long period of cross-party collaboration. I hope that that continues and that we continue to base our work on evidence and care. It is what has got us here today. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) made that point very well and asked for more resources, so well done him. I will perhaps come on to some of that.
In national testing week, we are making great strides towards the goal of no new transmissions in England by 2030. We are, as many members have said, at a crucial point in that journey. HIV testing has been revolutionised. It is now fast, free and available in the privacy of our own homes—even when our home is No. 10 Downing Street, as the Prime Minister showed us on Friday. I know that that is a powerful message not just in this country but globally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) highlighted.
When we normalise testing, we normalise prevention, treatment and care—and we normalise saving lives. I thank every colleague who attended Tuesday’s drop-in. It is so important for all of us in this place and elsewhere to help smash the stigma however we can, transform perceptions, and drive us closer to no new transmissions.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for making an impassioned speech; she is doing an excellent job. She has highlighted the importance of testing and the fantastic work all the different organisations do in pushing it. Does she agree that for us to reach the vital goal of no new transmissions by 2030, we should be following Wales’s example of having year-round access to online testing to help more people test and to eradicate HIV by 2030?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her great leadership in her work through the APPG. Some of that work looks very successful, and I will comment on it shortly, because we do need to learn and share from each other.
When it comes to reducing stigma, we have all exposed how old we are in this debate today. I am as old as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and perhaps the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and some others. I worked in the health service through the late ’80s. It was a gay man who started raising awareness to me about stigma around HIV and AIDS, and we have come an awful long way. The hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) rightly talked about the role of the stigma, and that iconic moment with Princess Diana was so important. It was so long ago but to some of us it seems like yesterday.
I can give some updates to colleagues. So far this HIV testing week we have given out 13,308 testing kits. That is 13,308 people who now have the power to know their status, take control of their health and contribute to the fight to end new HIV transmissions in England. Last year, National HIV Testing Week delivered more than 25,000 testing kits, achieving great results among communities disproportionately affected by HIV. For example, the uptake of testing kits for black African communities has tripled since 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made excellent points about that.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West tempt me to comment on the Scottish Government’s role in this area. Politics aside, they highlighted a serious point about sharing good practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) made that exact point about the role of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I do not think I knew that Terrence Higgins was Welsh, and I am married to a proud Welshman—something that we share, Dr Allin-Khan —so that looks bad on me. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made an excellent point about the role of Terrence Higgins’s leadership and the people that came after him to lead that organisation. We need to learn from and work with each other. On behalf of the Department, I commit to continue our work across the United Kingdom to share and learn from best practice. I think that my colleagues across the United Kingdom, whatever political party they belong to, would echo that.
As the Minister here in England, I know that the campaign would not be possible without HIV Prevention England, the national HIV prevention programme, which is funded by the Government and delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust with local partners. The programme aims to promote HIV testing in communities that are disproportionately affected by HIV, bringing down the number of undiagnosed and late-diagnosed cases. Every year, it runs National HIV Testing Week, a summer campaign to raise awareness of HIV and STI prevention and testing, and much more. We are committed to building on those successes, which is why we have extended the programme for a further year until March 2026, backed by an additional £1.5 million.
Looking to the future, we are making progress to end new transmissions before 2030, but we know that much more work needs to be done to reach our goals. We have had some excellent contributions on that today. Our work is not over until every person, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, gender or circumstances, has access to testing without barriers. I hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and others about fear and the historic fear that people have felt. We will not stop until every test is met with care, every diagnosis with treatment and every individual with dignity and respect, regardless of who they are or their HIV status.
Steve Race
Does the Minister agree that although we have a cross-party consensus here today and I accept the words of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) at face value, the history of HIV action in this country over the last 10 to 15 years paints rather a different picture? We might be closer to eradicating HIV transmissions if the public health grant, which was set in 2014, had had any increases until this Government increased it by 5.5% this year; if the national HIV prevention programme, which started out with a budget of £4 million in 2010, had not had only a £1.1 million budget by last year; if the funding for the HIV helpline had not been abolished in 2012; and if the HIV innovation fund had not been abolished somewhere among the Johnson, Truss and Sunak psychodrama.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton made similar points. The level of cuts to our public services and, by implication, to third sector organisations and their contribution to the fabric of our society—they do work that the public sector cannot get to with groups of people that it cannot get to—is shocking. It was shocking as we went through it. Lord Darzi has given us a good diagnosis of some of those problems. We want to take forward the good work that has been done, but we have inherited a landscape that I wish we had not.
We are very much committed to making progress because we want to build a future where testing is routine, treatment is available to all, PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis are accessible and no one is left alone in their journey. My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) talked about the important role of local government and had some fantastic examples.
To support improved PrEP access and many other critical HIV prevention interventions, the Government have provided local authority-commissioned public health services, which include sexual and reproductive health services, a cash increase of £198 million compared with 2024-25—an average 5.4% cash increase and a 3% real-terms increase. That represents a significant turning point for local health services: the biggest real-terms increase after nearly a decade of reduced spending between 2016 and 2024, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter highlighted. I hope that starts to put us back on track.
We are pushing that commitment forward by engaging with a range of system partners and stakeholders to develop our new HIV action plan, which we will publish this year. A number of points have been made about what should be included in that plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, will hear that and will work with colleagues here and in the Department to ensure the plan is effective.
I extend my sincerest thanks to Professor Kevin Fenton, the Government’s chief adviser on HIV, who is hosting engagement sessions and roundtables in parallel with external stakeholders, including the voluntary and community sector, professional bodies, local partners and others. We are also working alongside the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and a broad range of system partners to inform the development of the new action plan, and guarantee that it is robust, inclusive and evidence-based. This collaboration is essential, because we are fighting not just HIV, but the barriers that keep people from knowing their status. We are fighting stigma, misinformation, and inequality in access to treatment and care.
Achieving these goals requires action, because the future is not just something we wait for; it is something we create. That is why, in December last year, the Prime Minister committed to extending the highly successful emergency department HIV opt-out testing scheme, backed by an additional £27 million, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale noted. During the past 34 months, more than 2.5 million HIV tests have been conducted through the scheme, indicatively finding more than 1,000 people who were undiagnosed or not in care. These are not just numbers; they are people we might never have reached who are now empowered with access to critical sexual health services. Increasing testing across all communities is a cornerstone of our new action plan and essential to ending HIV transmissions. That is why we must harness the power of HIV testing week.
Before I wrap up, I join the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for sharing his own experience, which, in motivating his career in nursing—and now his new career—he used to serve and help others. He did that excellently today.
Today, testing is not just about detection; it is about connection. It is about linking people to the care, support and community they need to thrive. It is about ensuring that no one is left behind—and that includes globally. We have committed to supporting the international effort to ending HIV and AIDS, with £37 million towards increasing access to vital sexual and reproductive health services, including HIV testing, prevention and management services for vulnerable and marginalised people across the globe.
Our commitment is unwavering, and our mission is clear. This National HIV Testing Week, let me be clear: a single test can save a life, so let us make testing the norm, the expectation and the action that drives us to a future with no new HIV transmissions.
David Mundell
I do apologise for the length of my constituency’s name, because otherwise we could have had a longer debate. It has been a good debate with some powerful contributions. I, too, commend the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for reflecting on their personal experiences. It is so important that we do so, and both hon. Gentleman show that it is possible to move on, as someone who is HIV-positive, to play a full part in the world and in Parliament.
I particularly want to refer to a point made by the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), which was that this is not just about gay men. There is a stereotype that this is all about gay men. It is not. As we have heard, the statistics show that gay men are among the most prolific in having tests. It is about other communities, and it is about women. That is the message that we have to get across, and that is why opt-out testing is so important.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) raised my pet subject, which is PrEP. It is ridiculous that, during this debate, I could have emailed somebody in India and obtained PrEP, but I could not go up Victoria Street into a pharmacy and do that. As well as making sure that we continue with the testing initiative, let us make PrEP more readily available.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Cardiovascular Disease: Prevention
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Demonstrating my own multifunctionality, I am now going to chair but not participate in the next debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the prevention of cardiovascular disease.
I do not know where my functionality comes into it, Mr Mundell, but we are doing two debates in a row and it is lovely to serve under your chairship. As I explained in the last debate, I am my party’s health spokesperson. I have a lot of interest in this subject; I also declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health. Cardiovascular disease is one of the things that the group focuses on.
Back in 2019, the NHS long-term plan defined cardiovascular disease as the single biggest area where the NHS can save lives over the next 10 years. Six years on, that statement still rings true, but I am not sure whether we any closer to arriving at a conclusion. Over 7.6 million people are living with heart and circulatory diseases in the United Kingdom, and CVD is responsible for a quarter of all deaths here every year. It is one of the biggest killers.
I am very pleased to see the hon. Members here, and I thank them for coming. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), is here for the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); he and I seem to regularly share debates. I am also pleased to see the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
According to predictions from the British Heart Foundation, by 2030 the prevalence of heart and circulatory conditions in the United Kingdom will have increased by 1 million. By 2040, it will rise by 2 million, due to a growing elderly population, the high prevalence of CVD risk factors and improved survival from major CVD events. Cardiovascular disease care in the United Kingdom is most certainly at a critical juncture. That was starkly illustrated by Lord Darzi’s recent independent investigation into the state of the NHS; I know that we are all aware of some of the key points of that. The investigation set out how nearly 50 years of progress to improve CVD outcomes has begun to reverse in recent years. That must not happen.
I seek reassurance from the Minister that we are out to stop that reversal. The number of people dying before the age of 75 with CVD has risen to its highest level since 2010, while the association between poor CVD outcomes and health inequalities has also increased, with people living in the most deprived parts of the country being twice as likely to die from CVD as those in the least deprived. Something is seriously wrong when those who just happen to live in a deprived area have a bigger risk of dying than those who do not. The slowing of progress is creating an enormous cost for the NHS and society as a whole, including £12 billion in total healthcare costs and £28 billion across the wider economy due to premature death, long-term care, disability and other informal costs.
A key challenge relates to the high prevalence of CVD risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, limited physical activity, air pollution and smoking. I declare an interest as I have had type 2 diabetes for almost 20 years. Mine is controlled by medication and I thank God for that, but I understand the impact on others much worse off than I am.
Raised cholesterol is another significant risk factor, associated with one in five deaths from CVD. Just over half of all UK adults are living with raised cholesterol, significantly increasing their risk of heart attack and stroke. However, due to the lack of immediately obvious symptoms, high cholesterol levels often go undetected. There are concerns that without immediate action there could be a further tidal wave of CVD deaths due to the thousands of “missing patients” living with undetected and unmanaged heart and circulatory conditions.
There are similar challenges in Northern Ireland. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, which I think replicates what happens here on the mainland; that is why I do it. An estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases in Northern Ireland—remember that we have a population of 1.9 million; that gives you an idea of the proportions. Since the 1960s, significant progress has been made, with CVD death rates falling by three quarters. But that improvement has plateaued in recent years: some 4,227 people died from CVD in Northern Ireland last year, including 1,133 people under age 75. It is not just an elderly person’s disease. That has to be put on the record.
Annual NHS expenditure on CVD in Northern Ireland is some £290 million—a colossal amount—and CVD’s overall cost to the Northern Ireland economy equates to some £740 million each year. Those are massive figures. I know that we should not look at health from a purely financial point of view, but those figures tell us that if we were working better to combat CVD the impact on the economy and health service would be greatly reduced. Northern Ireland faces similar problems when it comes to identification and management of CVD risk factors, with around 400,000 people living with high blood pressure, including 110,000 who are undiagnosed. Some 45% of adults in Northern Ireland are not performing enough daily physical activity.
In my constituency of Strangford, the prevalence of hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke is significantly higher than in the rest of Northern Ireland. The reason for that could well be that our population is elderly: people tend to retire to my constituency. Despite the dire figures, there are real opportunities, both in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, to reverse the trends and help the UK become a world leader in CVD, as at one stage it was clearly trying to do. To get there, however, we clearly have to start doing things rather differently. Recent years have seen a number of policy commitments from successive Governments, but those have not shifted the needle, focus or direction. Today’s debate is about highlighting that and seeking help to address the situation.
There was the NHS long-term plan of 2019, which set out ambitions to prevent 150,000 heart attacks, strokes and dementia cases over the following 10 years. Unfortunately, in my constituency and elsewhere there are high levels of dementia cases, strokes and heart attacks. In Northern Ireland the figures are unfortunately incredibly high.
Successive versions of the NHS annual planning guidance have encouraged local systems to prioritise CVD and address the significant inequalities associated with it. Although the previous Government’s major conditions strategy was not fully implemented, it set out a series of robust principles to improve CVD care, including personalised prevention, early diagnosis, effective management of multiple conditions, integration of physical and mental health services, and services tailored to individual needs. The previous Government’s strategy was clear. I think this Government’s strategy is equally clear, but we need to address some of the issues that I will come to as I go through my speech.
We are lacking a deeply embedded, system-wide approach to CVD prevention that moves care upstream, is backed by sustainable, long-term funding and deploys the latest technologies and innovations. The National Audit Office’s recent report, “Progress in preventing cardiovascular disease”, provided stark evidence that such an approach has been lacking. It focused on the delivery of the NHS health check, which is one of our main tools for enabling early intervention on heart disease. It concluded:
“there is currently no effective system for commissioning Health Checks, despite it being a statutory responsibility on local authorities. DHSC and local government have weak levers to encourage primary care or other services to deliver Health Checks.”
That will be one of my asks of the Minister, who I am pleased to see in his place. I wish him well, and I know I will not be disappointed by his response to our requests.
In 2023-24, only half of the eligible population attended a health check, and only 3% of local authorities covered their entire eligible populations. We have to change that, so my request is that local authorities, which have statutory responsibility, primary care and other services that deliver health checks increase the number of people who get checked.
We need an action plan. The NAO report said:
“This is not a satisfactory basis for delivering an important and potentially life-saving and money-saving contribution to population health.”
Major improvements are needed, and the Government must embed them in a policy environment that promotes prevention rather than treatment. I have always been a believer in prevention rather than treatment. We must diagnose early and prevent disease at an early stage to stop the whole thing going further.
The current approaches do not sufficiently take account of genetics and the role of inherited familial conditions such as familial hypercholesterolaemia and cardiomyopathy in increasing CVD risk. Children are not routinely screened, GPs often fail to take account of people’s family history, and many patients report difficulties in accessing genetic screening.
Patients and doctors need to be empowered to access genetic testing, secure diagnosis and take preventive measures, which will ensure better health for the future and save money in the NHS. I am pleased that the Government have committed an extra £26 billion to the NHS, because right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will all benefit from that.
Up to 80% of premature deaths from CVD are preventable—we cannot ignore that figure. Preventing those deaths must be our goal, so the importance of this issue cannot be overstated. The evidence shows that CVD prevention pays. Analysis from HEART UK estimates that merely improving the management of cholesterol, triglycerides and other lipids through increased uptake of NHS health checks and, by extension, increasing the number of patients on lipid-lowering therapies, could deliver more than £2 billion in annual savings for the NHS and wider society.
I will focus on lipid-lowering therapies, because that is a solution that I am keen to see the Government take on board. Although prevention spending is often deprioritised in favour of meeting short-term measures, that is the kind of investment that we need if we are to deliver on the Government’s pledge to shift from sickness to prevention. I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that; that is what my party and I want.
In recent discussions I have had with stakeholders on this area, they have agreed a number of key themes that will be crucial to delivering progress on CVD prevention. Those include securing dedicated and ringfenced funding for CVD prevention, to enable targeted prioritisation of preventive approaches; identifying at-risk patients through early detection and risk assessment strategies, including testing from birth and family cascade testing; developing comprehensive public awareness campaigns that empower patients to self-monitor—if we can have patients’ participation in this as we go forward, that will be much welcomed; increasing access to prevention services by moving them closer to home, including by delivering more community-based diagnostic services; and ensuring timely implementation and consistent application of evidence-based clinical guidelines.
There is growing recognition of the potentially transformative opportunity that can be realised through wider awareness and recognition of another key CVD risk factor: lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), which is a large lipoprotein made by the liver. Lipoproteins are parcels made of fat and protein. Their job is to carry fats around the body in the blood. Elevated levels of Lp(a) in the blood are an independent, inherited and causal risk factor for CVD, due to its pro-atherogenic, pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effects.
One in five people are estimated to have raised levels of Lp(a) in their blood. That equates to some 13,400,000 people in the United Kingdom—equivalent to filling every seat in Wembley stadium about 150 times. Lp(a) is associated with an increased risk of several life-threatening events and conditions, such as myocardial infarction, heart attack, stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease and heart failure. Sadly, those events are often premature, so we need a way of diagnosing, doing early prevention and doing things better. My ultimate request to the Minister will be that that happens.
In severe cases, which applies to about 12% of the population, raised Lp(a) contributes to a two to four times higher risk of heart attack, stroke and heart disease. The prevalence of raised Lp(a) is typically greater among African and south Asian populations—a trend that is likely exacerbating existing health inequalities even further.
Despite the huge numbers at risk, few people know that they have a raised level of Lp(a). If they did, preventive measures might be taken: they could get a diagnosis, and we could ensure that their lives were better and longer, as well as reducing the cost to the NHS. The awareness of the role of Lp(a) in contributing to CVD risk is low among the general public and healthcare professionals, so there is a need to raise awareness. With that significant burden comes a huge opportunity to improve outcomes for a so far largely untreated and unserved patient population.
I want to mention my constituent, Dr Paul Hamilton, and also Gary Roulston. They are consultant chemical pathologists at Queen’s University Belfast and Belfast health and social care trust. They are leading pioneering work to proactively measure Lp(a) levels in patients who are at risk of CVD. I am always amazed—I always like to say this about Queen’s University, and it is right to do so—that when it comes to research and development, it is at the forefront, including on Lp(a). I encourage the Minister to interact with Queen’s University. The recent audit of its testing programme has revealed that early measuring of Lp(a) levels leads to a change in CVD management for a large number of patients. That demonstrates that Lp(a) testing and management can be implemented to improve population health and reduce the risk of CVD.
When we look at those things, we see something that can be done even better. Although there are currently no specific therapies for lowering Lp(a) levels, the taskforce believes that there is a clear and growing case for taking action now to incorporate Lp(a) testing and management within mainstream CVD prevention strategies. Several new therapies to lower Lp(a) are currently undergoing late-stage clinical trials, and could well be available in the near future, pending the outcome of those trials. That is a really exciting way forward, and an exciting way to save and improve lives. It is therefore vital that steps are taken to enable system readiness for those therapies and to ensure that the NHS is in the best possible position to maximise their anticipated benefits.
In the interim, there is a growing clinical consensus about the value of identifying patients with elevated Lp(a). In particular, knowing an individual’s Lp(a) can inform more intensive management of other cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, lipids and glucose, and empower people to make a lifestyle change to reduce their overall CVD risk. It can also support cascade screening of family and close relatives—again, a positive way forward —given the genetic status of Lp(a). There is clearly a way to use technology and innovation to test more and to do more good for people. Tangible progress in that area could play a key role in supporting many of the key principles that have been identified as crucial to guaranteeing the future sustainability of the NHS, such as reducing pressure in the acute sector, delivering more personalised care and precision medicine, and capitalising on the pioneering innovation led by the UK’s life science sector.
More broadly, Lp(a) testing can support the Government’s ambitions right here in Westminster to get people back into work, by reducing the incidence of major CVD events, which can prevent people from participating in the labour market. Diagnosis and prevention can support people. To be fair, most people want to work; they want to have a normal life. The ones I speak to are not seeking benefits for any reason other than that they are unable to work.
Without formal recognition of Lp(a) in national policy, the only Lp(a) testing that takes place will be reliant on the work of proactive local clinicians. We need to make it the norm; we need to make it acceptable and the way forward. The regional variations are also not acceptable, and local systems need clear direction from the centre to encourage them to start thinking proactively about how Lp(a) testing and management could be incorporated into their local CVD prevention pathways.
What are we seeking? We are looking for a review of current CVD prevention and treatment pathways, for an assessment of where Lp(a) testing could be incorporated to deliver tangible benefits now—not later, but now—and to maximise the benefits of therapies that lower Lp(a), when those become available. We are also looking for engagement with local specialist lipid clinics and clinical laboratories to assess current levels of Lp(a) testing and whether it aligns with agreed best practice and to consider what will be needed to upscale activity in the coming years. We want to encourage local CVD champions to start thinking about the role of Lp(a) in contributing to CVD risk and to disseminate information about Lp(a) within their local networks.
In the taskforce’s call to action, it identified several system barriers that are holding back progress in this area; these are also applicable to the success of other health prevention strategies. They include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence procedures and methodology. NICE’s guideline methodology needs to take account of wider evidence criteria beyond the ones that apply to a specific treatment. In the case of Lp(a), although specific therapies to lower Lp(a) are not currently available, the taskforce believes that there is none the less a strong case for taking action now to proactively incorporate recommendations on Lp(a) testing and management in NICE guidance. If replicated across other disease areas, that more proactive and anticipatory approach from NICE would help to improve NHS system readiness for new innovations and treatments, encourage healthcare professionals to think more proactively about how a specific risk factor may be contributing to overall risk, and embed a more preventive mindset across the health system, reflecting the significant role of NICE in driving clinical behaviour. If it is possible to make those improvements—it is cost-effective, and early diagnosis will make things preventable—we really need to look at that.
Barriers also include the accuracy of health risk assessments. Risk assessment tools, particularly in CVD, play a crucial role in supporting health prevention strategies. An accurate assessment of an individual’s risk of experiencing a major CVD event can inform the most appropriate action to proactively manage and reduce that risk through a combination of treatment interventions and lifestyle changes—each of, us individually, has to play a part.
Going forward, it is vital that existing CVD risk assessment tools are updated to take account of Lp(a) and its known association with a range of life-threatening or life-changing cardiovascular events and conditions. That recognition will be essential to delivering a truly holistic assessment of an individual’s cardiovascular risk profile.
It is important to look at the standardisation of testing and reporting. The success of health prevention strategies also depends on the accuracy and consistency of diagnostic processes. In the case of Lp(a), testing should be conducted according to the best practice principles set out by HEART UK. Has the Minister had a chance to talk to HEART UK, which has some great ideas and positive ways forward? It is important to work in partnership to deliver therapies, diagnoses and prevention.
On emerging therapies, in particular, it is vital that there is a focus on encouraging greater diagnostic standardisation from the outset. Clinicians often get used to the numbers they first use, and it is important that they do not become entrenched in using the wrong, or indeed superseded, units. Without action in these areas, Lp(a) testing and management risks becoming another promising area of health innovation where the UK falls behind comparative systems.
We need to look further afield and to work with other countries; I met the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, this morning and said the same thing to him. Prominent European and American guidelines, such as those from the American Heart Association, the National Lipid Association and the European Atherosclerosis Society, have set out the importance of considering Lp(a) screening as part of CVD prevention approaches. Some countries are even thinking practically about how universal Lp(a) screening could be introduced. The present approach therefore puts us at risk of missing a rare opportunity to save lives that may be cut short by CVD, and will be increasingly out of line with the Government’s focus on transforming prevention across the NHS.
The Lp(a) taskforce is a coalition of experts from across the cardiovascular, lipid and laboratory community, with members from all four nations of the United Kingdom. They have come together to help tackle the lack of awareness and to set out the value of testing for Lp(a) in routine clinical practice to improve CVD management. Chaired by HEART UK, the group published its calls for action in August 2023, and it has since been working with key stakeholders to set out the potentially transformative role that Lp(a) could play in the future and, more broadly, to help renew the UK’s status as a world leader. We can be the world leader in CVD prevention and care.
I have some questions for the Minister. Is there a willingness to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce, as well as other Members here with an interest in the subject, to discuss the essential steps that need to be taken to ensure that the UK is in the best possible position to integrate Lp(a) testing and management as a core part of CVD prevention strategies? Further, will he commit to engaging with key system partners such as NICE, NHS England and the devolved Administrations to address policy barriers that could hold back progress? I am ever mindful that the Lp(a) taskforce already comprises the four nations of the United Kingdom.
The Government must take wider action through their forthcoming 10-year health plan to secure renewed focus on CVD prevention, underpinned by ringfenced funding, enhanced early detection, expanding community diagnostic capacity, the timely implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and comprehensive public awareness and patient empowerment programmes. Will the Minister explore the scope to develop a dedicated national strategy for cardiovascular disease? We had that in 2019; I believe we need it in 2025.
Reversing these worrying trends in CVD is one of the great healthcare challenges that we face in this Parliament, and it must be approached with the necessary focus and attention. The UK must be able to capitalise on new and emerging areas such as Lp(a), which will be crucial if it is to renew its status as a world leader in CVD prevention and care. Just as with cancer, one in two people in this Chamber today are likely to develop heart and circulatory conditions in their lifetime. Just like the cancer community, the CVD community would welcome a commitment from the Minister to publish a dedicated national CVD strategy. At the end of the day, that is what I am asking for.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. Cardiovascular disease is a phrase heard far too often in family circles, large communities and even on the national scale. Cardiovascular disease is responsible for one in four deaths in the UK, and causes misery to many families. In Dudley alone, 10,000 people are living with heart conditions and circulatory diseases. Across the Black Country integrated care system, 11,000 people are waiting for cardiac treatment; nearly 5,000 have already waited longer than the NHS target. Those numbers translate into our everyday lives—in strokes, peripheral arterial disease, diabetes and heart conditions. Every delay means more emergencies and, tragically, more preventable deaths.
We must act now. Prevention and early intervention are critical to combating cardiovascular disease. We know that obesity, high blood pressure and smoking are risk factors. In Dudley, 30% of adults are living with obesity—higher than the national average—and 16% are smokers still. I welcome the Government’s initiatives to tackle smoking and encourage weight loss, and I believe that addressing and diagnosing cardiovascular conditions will help our population to live healthier lives.
It is not just our fantastic doctors who are experts in cardiovascular care but our allied health professionals. AHPs have a big role in diagnosing and managing cardiovascular diseases. As a physiotherapist by trade, I screen for cardiovascular conditions, which can masquerade as musculoskeletal conditions. I check blood pressure and carotid pulse, perform auscultation, check for neurological conditions, and conduct vascular exams and cranial nerve testing of the face. Physiotherapists are involved not only in assessments but in rehabilitation at places such as Action Heart in Dudley, which is inundated with referrals, and where patients get excellent care through cardiovascular rehabilitation and preventive programmes. My podiatry colleagues check for peripheral vascular disease and diabetic foot, and are a fountain of knowledge. My occupational therapist, and speech and language therapist colleagues do exceptional work with stroke patients. My radiology colleagues help with diagnosing these conditions. My paramedic colleagues manage these patients in acute care when they need it the most. An AHP myself, I could talk about AHPs all day but I want to present some recommendations for steps that the Government could take to make a big difference.
First, a multidisciplinary team is important. We should ensure that AHPs are at the centre when making policy decisions and announcements, not just for cardiovascular conditions but for all conditions; they are not just tackled by doctors. Secondly, we should ensure that diagnosis and check-ups are being done in general practice. Along with GPs, we should look at first contact practitioners, podiatrists, paramedics and physiotherapists, who also work in primary healthcare; and pharmacists, who can do the simple checks to check blood pressure early on. Thirdly, we should provide substantial and ringfenced funding for local health systems to scale up successful CVD risk management programmes. That is essential for us to move forward, and should include cardiovascular rehabilitation and prescription of gym memberships in the community, to ensure that those who need care have structured, long-term support with an emphasis on healthier lifestyles.
We owe it to our communities, to the NHS, and most of all to the thousands of people living with cardiovascular disease to change now. Let us not wait for more lives to be lost.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
May I say what an honour it is to serve under the chairmanship of such a multi-talented, multi-functional Chair?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
You can speak for as long as you want. [Laughter.]
Jas Athwal
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate.
Cardiovascular disease changes lives, takes lives and robs families of loved ones. I speak from personal experience: my father has been gone for 29 years and my mother for 28 years because of cardiovascular disease, so I know it absolutely robs families of loved ones. Across the UK, cardiovascular disease alone is responsible for one in four premature deaths. Beyond the personal impact it has on families, cardiovascular disease also places an enormous burden on our NHS, costing more than £7.5 billion per year. Preventive medicine and early detection can save lives, keep families together and reduce the burden on our NHS.
While preventive measures can take many different forms, which my colleagues have addressed today, I will focus on early diagnosis, as I know personally how critical it can be. In 2023, having cycled 85 miles on a Sunday, I felt the healthiest and strongest I had ever felt in my life, but one precautionary test taken purely to reassure myself that I was fit shattered my illusions and changed my life, but ultimately saved it. I was diagnosed with chronic heart disease. Within weeks, I had a triple heart bypass. Had I not taken that test, I believe that I would not be here today. Early detection saved my life, and it can save millions more.
In my constituency of Ilford South, a community-based study was conducted across four GP practices by Dr Laskar and Professor Lloyd from Barts hospital. Non-specialist healthcare workers used handheld echocardiogram devices to screen 518 local people. The study found that 22% of those screened were referred for specialist assessments, potentially saving the lives of one in five of those screened. The study in Ilford South demonstrates how we can detect serious conditions early without requiring expensive hospital visits later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) just said, prevention and early intervention save lives. By investing in local healthcare services and using tools such as the handheld echocardiogram device, we can catch problems sooner, treat people faster and relieve pressure on our overstretched hospitals sooner. Early diagnosis is not just a medical advantage, but lifesaving. It delivers more time with loved ones, less strain on our NHS and a future in which fewer lives are cut short. We have a golden opportunity to prolong life and to give the gift of life, and I urge the Minister to grab it with both hands.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his characteristically detailed and impassioned speech in opening the debate.
Cardiovascular disease, or CVD, affects around 7 million people in the UK, making it a significant cause of both disability and premature death. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) just shared, its impact is felt by many of us. In my family, my paternal grandfather, Lance, died of a heart attack in his 50s, and my maternal grandfather, Bill, died of an aortic aneurysm in his 80s. Thirteen years ago my father, Hugh, had a triple heart bypass. Happily he survived, and he is doing well 13 years on. I am enormously grateful to the NHS for what it did to save my father’s life, but much more needs to be done to prevent the impacts of cardiovascular disease on so many people in the UK.
We know that there is a huge variety of causes of cardiovascular disease. One cause, for which we have the solutions, is socioeconomic disparities. The truth is that those who live in the most deprived areas of our country are at far greater risk. People in the 10% most deprived communities are almost twice as likely to die from CVD as those in the least deprived areas. Clearly, there is work to do to close this gap. It is unfathomable to me that in a small and supposedly prosperous nation, a man living in Kensington and Chelsea can now expect to live 27 years longer than a man in Blackpool. That is not just alarming; it is unjust. The disparity worsens when we consider those who have severe mental illness. For people with extreme mental illness, their life expectancy is 15 to 20 years less than that of the general population, and they have a 53% higher risk of developing CVD.
The previous Conservative Government’s lack of support exacerbated these health disparities. Public health funding was cut by 26% in 2015, leaving local authorities unable to provide vital services. With the new Government showing some signs of making genuine investment in the right places, I believe this situation can change—indeed, it must change.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to creating a healthier and more equal society. The UK has long been known for its grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. We should be one of the healthiest countries in the world. Under the previous Conservative Government, however, the country became sicker, lagging far behind our international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the new Government to take urgent action to support people in leading healthier lives by reversing the Conservative cuts to public health funding. I firmly believe that improving public health is not just about treatment—far from it, in fact. It is also about empowering people to live healthier lives, creating healthier environments and supporting communities to make decisions that improve their health. In doing these things, we will take pressure off overburdened systems and create a more resilient population.
There are several steps that we propose to address the current situation. First, there should be a reversal of cuts to the public health grant, enabling local authorities to provide essential preventive services. Secondly, a proportion of the public health grant should be set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities in order to co-produce plans for their communities. Thirdly, a health creation unit should be established in the Cabinet Office to lead work across Government to improve the nation’s health and tackle health inequalities.
Our vision for the future also includes tackling the obesity crisis. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found a direct correlation between deprivation and obesity in both adults and children. That is why we are calling for an end to the two-child limit and the benefits cap, which would lift over 500,000 children out of poverty. We would also expand free school meals to all children in poverty and work to ensure that every child in primary school has access to a healthy meal. We must also protect our children from the harmful effects of ultra-processed food advertising, and encourage healthier lifestyles by supporting walking and cycling. Our transport networks need to be redesigned to prioritise active travel and road safety, ensuring that every community can access safe spaces for walking and cycling.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to making the UK a healthier and fairer place to live. We know that investment in prevention, public health and primary care is key to tackling the root causes of cardiovascular disease and improving the lives of millions across the nation. This issue is solvable and we have the answers. We just need to act.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Before I start my speech, I think it was Gandalf who said:
“A wizard is never late…Nor is he early; he arrives precisely when he means to.”
I think it is correct protocol to be here at the start of a debate, although I for one would certainly like to see the Minister sprinkle his magic on this topic, because I hope that he will provide some enlightening answers in response to such an important debate.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his industrial strength in always securing these debates. I believe it is said that the man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones; the hon. Member for Strangford is moving the metaphorical health mountains, one Westminster Hall debate at a time. I raise my hat to him, because I have had the chance to respond to a debate of his at least half a dozen times. He always conducts himself in an incredible manner and provides incredible detail, so I thank him for that.
If we can tackle the risk factors behind cardiovascular disease and identify it at an early stage, we can make a significant difference by reducing the number of people lost to premature deaths every year. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke movingly about his mother and his father. That was followed up by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who spoke about her father 13 years on; her father will be very proud to see his daughter in this debate. I am sure the parents of the hon. Member for Ilford South would be proud of his achievements as well, and the fact that he is raising such an important topic.
I come to this topic as a GP, and this is pretty much the bread and butter of life for a GP: advising on healthy lifestyles, and managing blood pressure, angina, obesity, smoking, heart failure, strokes and many more conditions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who pointed out how important that is. It is not just the doctor’s role any more; this is the MDT approach, and actually a quality MDT really helps the GP to understand where they need to look and to manage their workload, which is so important not just for clinicians but, most importantly, for the patients. It is an honour to take part in this debate and to help to shape it.
From a public health perspective, the last Government made significant progress on things such as calorie labelling, salt and sugar reformulation and smoking cessation, which are all contributors to cardiovascular disease. It was just three years ago that the NHS published its CVD prevention recovery plan, which set out four high-impact areas for every part of health services to focus on risk factors, detection and management. Examples include the rolling out of blood pressure checks in high street pharmacies and allowing people to measure blood pressure at home. The NHS long-term plan set out five ambitions to detect and treat people at risk of developing CVD. The plan has been revised twice, in 2022 and 2024.
This work was reinforced by the introduction of the NHS digital health check in spring 2024, which aimed to prevent 400 heart attacks over four years. The National Audit Office report into CVD, which was published in November 2024, said the disruption to the NHS caused by the covid pandemic has had substantial impacts on elective care, and this has undoubtedly had an impact on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. We do not have to look back too far to think about lockdown and the effect that that had on people’s physical activity, their ability to seek help and some of the preventive and advisory medicine that would have normally taken place. Following the NAO report, the Government committed to reviewing the NHS health check programme. Will the Minister confirm the timescales for the review and when the reports on the outcome will be published?
The hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed to cholesterol and lipids. Lipids are often not given the attention needed; they are hugely important when addressing cardiovascular disease, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning them. I have done constituency casework on this topic as a Back-Bench MP. He mentioned lipoprotein(a), and I have been questioning Ministers about the development of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia and the development of a familial hypercholesterolaemia service in Leicestershire. Although this is a complicated and involving space, given the great advances in the testing and understanding of lipids, it is really important that we get to the bottom of it to understand the environmental impacts that are causing this, as well as the genetic ones at play.
To that end, work has also included looking at how bodies can track patients and the difficulties that familial hypercholesterolaemia services have in cascading to local people’s relatives, which I think is what the hon. Member for Strangford was pointing to. This is probably beyond the scope of this debate, but given the hon. Gentleman’s success with this debate, it would be great if he were to secure a Back-Bench debate on lipids. Will the Minister consider asking the Department to look at improving the clinical pathways for familial hypercholesterolaemia and the possible roll-out of screening for both patients and family members? I appreciate that this has to be done through an evidence-based approach.
More people are living with multiple long-term conditions; that is no different for many people living with CVD, who are also living with other conditions, such as diabetes. That is why the last Government were developing the major conditions strategy to try to improve outcomes across major conditions, including cardiovascular disease, as well as cancer, diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders. Since the general election, Ministers have decided to go in a different direction, so will the Minister reassure me that the NHS 10-year plan will address the impact of those long-term conditions? As the hon. Member for Mid Sussex pointed out, inequality plays a role when it comes to cardiovascular disease, so I would be grateful if he would comment on that.
I think the quote goes, “Study the past if you would divine in the future,” and I am always keen to gain insight from across the House of what has previously happened. I note that almost a year ago today, there was a debate held in the main Chamber on the topic of heart and circulatory diseases by the then MP for Watford, the brilliant campaigner Dean Russell, who talked about his experience of having a heart attack. Of course, the debate was just a few months before the general election, but it gives us a good insight into what the then shadow Health team were thinking before they came into government, which they were successful in doing. The then shadow Minister, now the Minister for Secondary Care, was responding. She said:
“Labour has a mission to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes by a quarter within 10 years…Under our ‘Fit for the Future’ fund, we would double the number of scanners—speeding up heart and circulatory disease diagnosis”.
What is the amount in that fund? Has it been deployed, and what is the timescale? What scanners were specifically commissioned for cardiovascular disease? The then shadow Minister went on:
“We would also incentivise continuity of care in general practice, which would improve care in our communities for people living with heart and circulatory disease.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 940.]
No one has to tell me, as a GP, about the importance of continuity of care, so will the Minister explain what this would look like in the GP contract? What incentivisation is being considered for GPs?
The then shadow Minister went on:
“That is why Labour will introduce a child health action plan that will put prevention at the top of the agenda”.
Forgive me, but looking on the Government’s website and speaking to the House of Commons Library, I cannot see a report or plan on this topic; if I have missed it, will the Minister provide it? If there is not one, will the Minister set out the goals and timelines for achieving the plan, if the Department will provide them, and place it in the House of Commons Library?
On research, the then shadow Minister went on:
“That is why Labour’s regulatory innovation office would make Britain the best place in the world to innovate by speeding up decisions and providing a clear direction based on our modern industrial strategy, alongside a plan to make it easier for more patients to participate in clinical trials.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 941.]
Eight months into the new Government, I believe a chair has not been found, so will the Minister update me on when the role will be filled? Given that this was the stated aim of the Labour party in the CVD debate, what conversations is he having with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about speeding up cardiovascular trials?
I thought it fitting in closing to use the lines of Dean Russell, who used his closing remarks back then to point to the importance of data, education, protection and research in dealing with cardiovascular disease. I think the entire House can get behind that. The story of the hon. Member for Ilford South is a testament to the life advice that Dean gave to us then:
“if anyone at home is worried, they should get checked. If they are concerned that they have symptoms, they should get them looked at. It is better to get rid of fears before the event than to wait for them to become a reality and have to deal with the outcomes of that.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 944.]
I think we can all agree on that, too.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am sure that the Minister will begin with an apology to me, to Mr Shannon, as the Member in charge, and to all other participants, because it was very clear on the Order Paper that these proceedings would begin at 3 pm.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am indeed starting with an apology. I am very embarrassed by the fact that the debate was put by my officials in my diary as starting at 3.30 pm, and it is completely unacceptable that I arrived late. I apologise to you, Mr Mundell, and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is a very embarrassing situation, and I am not happy about it at all.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate on such an important issue and for the vital work he does as the chair of the APPG on vascular and venous disease. For their excellent contributions, I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who spoke powerfully on the basis of her extensive real-world experience and expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke so movingly about his family and personal experiences, and the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who spoke passionately about the shocking health disparities that blight our country, caused by 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence.
Before I begin my remarks, I want to pay tribute to people working in local government, our NHS staff and GPs up and down the country for their efforts to find, treat, and manage people at risk of cardiovascular disease—also known as CVD. As hon. Members will know, health is a devolved issue, so my remarks will be limited to matters in England; however, I am happy to pick up on many of the broader points that the hon. Gentleman for Strangford has made.
The last Labour Government made significant progress on reducing premature deaths from CVD through the introduction of big-hitting interventions such as the ban on smoking in public places and increases in statin prescribing. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, among the many appalling findings of Lord Darzi’s report, there is clear evidence that progress on CVD stalled, and even went into reverse in some areas, between 2010 and 2024. That is why it is this Government’s mission to invest in the health service, alongside fundamental reform to the way that healthcare is delivered. We will build a health and care system fit for the future by moving from sickness to prevention, hospital to home, and analogue to digital. Tackling preventable ill health is a key part of these shifts.
As part of our 10-year health plan, we are committed to helping everyone to live a healthy life for longer, and as the hon. Gentleman also outlined in his remarks, too many lives are cut short by heart disease and strokes. In 2022, one quarter of all CVD deaths in the UK occurred among people under the age of 75. Tackling CVD is not just the right thing to do for patients; CVD is also having an impact on growth. People with CVD are more likely to leave the labour market than people with poor mental health, and we must dispel the fiction that people with CVD are always old and infirm. Around one in three people who have a heart attack, one in four people who have a stroke, and two in five people with coronary heart disease are of working age.
The hon. Gentleman referred to premature deaths, and we know from the most recent figures that I have, from 2023, that in England alone over 130,000 people died from CVD and over 30,000 people died before they turned 75. The best estimates show that the annual cost of CVD to the NHS is a staggering £8.3 billion, with knock-on effects of £21 billion to the wider economy. This is a huge challenge, which is why we are meeting it with great ambition: to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke in people under 75 by one quarter within a decade. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will be spearheading our work in this area, and will also be picking up on many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech.
We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors such as living with obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking—all of which can be reduced by behaviour changes, early identification and treatment. In England, the NHS health check is a free check-up for people between 40 and 74. The NHS health check is a wide-reaching programme delivered by local authorities in England. This CVD prevention programme aims to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease—and also dementia for older patients.
In the very short period of time that I have left, I just wanted to say that the hon. Member for Strangford called for the introduction of Lp(a) tests. As I understand it, lipoprotein(a) measurement is not currently recommended by NICE guidance, and there are no treatments available that specifically target Lp(a). Instead, our focus is to improve the uptake of lipid-lowering therapies for prevention of CVD and to treat people with established CVD to NICE treatment targets. We will look closely at new tech and innovation and the essential role they will play in reducing health inequalities.
Jim Shannon
I apologise, but at the end of my speech I asked for three things. I asked whether there would be a willingness to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce to discuss the essential steps that are needed, and that—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Mr Shannon, I remind you that these proceedings go on to 4.30 pm, so there is no need for you to try to speak in a very short period of time.
Jim Shannon
I will not test your patience by speaking till 4.30 pm, Mr Mundell—I would test everybody’s patience if I were to do that—but could I sum up, if that is okay?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Yes. That is what I was saying, but I felt you were summing in a way that anticipated that we were concluding at 4 pm.
Jim Shannon
I would have asked to intervene, but the Minister had sat down.
First, I thank all Members for coming along. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) set the scene incredibly well with her knowledge and experience through her work—I think the Minister also referred to real-world experience. I thank her for her contribution; she is certainly establishing a name for herself in the Chamber.
There is no better way of illustrating a point than by telling a personal story, as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) did. It reminds me of one of my constituents who came to see me one day; he is a man I know very well, although he is in a different political party. I asked him how he was and he said, “Jim, I went to see my doctor; I thought I was okay, but before he finished the tests on me, he gave me a bit of paper. I said, ‘What’s that for?’ and he said, ‘You have to go hospital right now.’” He went and had a quadruple bypass—he thought he was perfectly healthy, and did not know that he was not. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South for sharing his story earlier.
The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) very clearly underlined the differential—that someone in Kensington and Chelsea can live for 20 years longer than someone in Blackpool. That has got to be wrong; we have to address those issues. She also mentioned the issue of obesity in children, and said that better food and school meals would improve public health and help to deliver more resilient people.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), referred to genetic testing and to the cascading of those tests right down through families, which is one of the things that I asked for. He referred to the 10-year plan, of which the long-term condition of CVD needs to be a part. The aims of the Government seem to indicate that there will be a wish to do those things in relation to CVD, and we very much hope that the Minister can do them.
I thank the Minister for arriving—look, things happen in life. Sometimes I am late as well, which is probably my fault on most occasions and I take the blame. On this occasion, I asked the Minister for three things, and I will repeat them now. Is the Minister willing to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce to discuss the essential steps that need to be taken now to ensure that the UK is in the best possible position to integrate Lp(a) testing? Will he commit to engaging with key system partners such as NICE, NHS England and the devolved Administrations to address relevant policy barriers that could hold back progress? I am ever mindful that the Lp(a) taskforce has already integrated the four nations of the United Kingdom in what it is doing. I always try to be positive—you know the person I am, Mr Mundell. My objective is not to catch anybody out; I only want positivity and a solution-based approach to what I am asking for. My last question was: will the Minister explore the scope to develop a dedicated national strategy for cardiovascular disease?
Those are my three requests, which I put forward genuinely, sincerely, honestly and kindly. I ask the Minister to let us all know his response and his policy, because I think that other Members, from all parties, would also like to know.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am sure the Minister will have heard the three points that Mr Shannon raised. On that basis, I will put the Question.
Dr Evans
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. In perfect symmetry, this debate has taken a somewhat different procedural pathway than usual; that is indeed what can happen to patients with cardiovascular disease—things surprise them, although we have systems for dealing with cardiovascular disease. My concern is that some of the questions I raised on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition have not had the chance to be answered. I would be grateful if the Minister would take them away and write to me—perhaps I could put them in a letter. Would it be within the scope of the Chair’s powers to allow that to be the case, Mr Mundell?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
That is not technically a point of order, but I am sure the Minister has heard what you have had to say. I am sure he and, indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed)—who was here from the start—will have noted all the points that Mr Shannon raised. If the points that Mr Shannon raised at the end—and indeed earlier, in his contribution before the Minister spoke—were unaddressed, I am sure that the Minister will write to him.
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely will. I would be happy to complete my remarks, but I do not know that would work, given that Mr Shannon has made his second contribution.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will make the determination that Mr Shannon’s contribution was an intervention—although an excessively lengthy one, which he will not repeat at the conclusion of the debate.
Stephen Kinnock
This has been an interesting debate on so many levels. I thank you for that clarification, Mr Mundell.
I was just talking about the fact that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable, and that the causes include obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking. All those factors can be reduced by behaviour changes, early identification and treatment. In England, the NHS health check is a free check-up for people between 40 and 74. It is a wide-reaching programme delivered by local authorities in England. This CVD prevention programme aims to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, as well as dementia for older patients. It engages over 1.4 million people a year and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes annually.
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that the National Audit Office report shows that there is still so much more to be done. That is why we have asked officials to be more ambitious, developing policy proposals for how that programme can go even further. In the meantime, we are focused on delivering a new digital NHS health check, available through the NHS app, so that people can assess, understand and act on their CVD risk at home. We want to make it easier for people to access that programme, especially our constituents who have caring or childcare responsibilities, or cannot easily get to their GP surgery during opening hours. The creation of a state-of-the-art national digital NHS check service will improve access to this lifesaving check.
The hon. Member was right to mention diabetes as a key risk for CVD. Each year, the NHS health check identifies 22,000 people with high blood sugar who are referred on to primary care for further assessment and management. GPs can refer people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes into the Healthier You NHS diabetes prevention programme. The programme has been highly effective: some 35,000 people have been referred to it by their GP, and over 20,000 have started the programme since September 2020. For people who complete that programme, it can cut the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 37%. For those who already have diabetes and are overweight or obese, the NHS type 2 path to remission programme is available. This joint initiative between NHS England and Diabetes UK aims to support eligible people with type 2 diabetes to achieve clinically significant weight loss, improve blood glucose levels and reduce the need for diabetes-related medication. A recent study found that almost a third of patients with type 2 diabetes who completed the programme went into remission.
Around half of heart attacks and strokes are a result of high blood pressure. A third of adults have high blood pressure and, worryingly, almost a third of these conditions are currently untreated, meaning that over 4 million people do not know that they have high blood pressure. It is often referred to as the silent killer, as high blood pressure is largely symptomless. The tragedy is that the treatment is so cheap and effective. We could prevent around 17,000 heart attacks and save more than £20 million in healthcare costs alone over three years just by treating 80% of patients on target.
The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned high levels of cholesterol as a key risk factor in CVD. For every three NHS health checks delivered, one person is found to have high cholesterol, and there are well-known health inequalities in CVD affecting underserved communities in England. Addressing undetected and poorly managed high blood pressure and raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD and reducing health inequalities.
There are effective drug treatments. Statins are readily available and very cheap. They can reduce an individual’s risk of CVD in four to six weeks. If we improve treatment rates for people with CVD to 95%, more than 18,000 CVD events, such as heart attacks and strokes, may be prevented over three years. We will look closely at how we can get that done. The hon. Member for Strangford called for the introduction of Lp(a) tests. As I mentioned, that is not currently recommended by NICE guidelines. I have taken account of his other remarks, including his request for a meeting and engagement with system partners. The Minister for Public Health and Prevention will take all those requests on board. She is the right person for him to meet, given that she leads in this policy area.
Smoking costs health and care services £3 billion a year—resources that could be freed up to deliver millions more appointments, scans and operations. The cost of smoking to our economy is even greater, with around £18 billion lost in productivity every year. Smokers are a third more likely to be off work sick, which is why we introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill: the biggest public health intervention in a generation. It will break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and put us on track towards a smoke-free UK. That will make a real difference in constituencies where smoking contributes to the cycle of poverty and ill health. We are also supporting local stop smoking services with an additional £70 million this financial year.
Today’s debate has shown what a challenging and complex area this is. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), raised a range of issues. I will ask the Minister for Public Health and Prevention to write to him on all his points, many of which I think would be best dealt with in correspondence.
Jas Athwal
The Minister makes powerful points. Does he agree that we should consider a wider, holistic approach, taking into account planning and advertising—for instance, children going to school and having access to the proliferation of chicken shops and fast-food shops, and being exposed to, on average, 13 to 15 junk food adverts? That would help to limit the number of heart diseases later down the line.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that prevention should focus on as early as possible in the life of our young people. Bad habits form at early ages. That is not helped by the behaviour of some aspects of our economy, and the way in which products are advertised. It is essential that we move to a model of prevention that is a partnership between the Government, our communities and business. We are taking action against the advertisement of certain products before the 9 o’clock watershed. We are also cracking down on energy drinks, which are really pernicious in terms of the amount of sugar, caffeine and other deeply unhealthy components they contain.
My hon. Friend is right that we are genuinely all in this together. We need that partnership with the private sector, and a change in mindset around healthy and nutritious food. That needs to be put into schools through community health, and through working with parents and communities to change the habits of our country. We have a gargantuan challenge ahead of us, but our Government are absolutely committed to facing it, and that prevention strategy will be at the heart of our 10-year plan. It is one of the key shifts from sickness to prevention.
That leads me to my closing remarks. We have seen today what a challenging and complex area this is. It is a challenge that requires sustained action on a number of risk factors, but I assure colleagues that this Government will leave no stone unturned in getting premature deaths from heart disease and stroke down by a quarter for people under the age of 75 within the next year.
In my contribution, I have sought to demonstrate our commitment to getting on with the shift from sickness to prevention with our cast-iron commitment to expanding NHS health checks, the shift from hospital and community by making it easier for people to get checks at their convenience and at home, and the shift from analogue to digital through an innovative and expanded digital service. I once again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this important debate, and thank all hon. Members across all parties for their excellent contributions. Watch this space: we will continue to work on this issue with focus and at pace.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Mr Shannon, do you wish to make a final contribution?
Jim Shannon
I am not quite sure what happened today, but I thank everyone—the Minister, all the hon. Members who made a contribution and the Backbench Business Committee for making this possible. We look forward to the delivery that the Government have indicated for the years ahead, on which all the nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can work together.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
It has been a little unconventional, but we got there in the end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Culture, Media and Sport
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
This Government will go further still to support this critical industry. The skills shortage that has been ignored for too long acts as a break on the ambitions of this incredible sector. That is why this Government launched Skills England to bring about the skills we need for a decade of national renewal of our communities, business and country. We will focus apprenticeships once more on young people to set them up to succeed and to help fill the 25,000 vacancies in the creative sector.
[Official Report, 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 316.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Lisa Nandy
This Government will go further still to support this critical industry. The skills shortage that has been ignored for too long acts as a break on the ambitions of this incredible sector. That is why this Government launched Skills England to bring about the skills we need for a decade of national renewal of our communities, business and country. We will focus apprenticeships once more on young people to set them up to succeed and to help fill the 49,000 vacancies in the creative industries.
Lisa Nandy
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, and I am grateful to her not just for her welcome today and her warm words but for the support that she and others on the Opposition Benches have given me and the team to take up the mantle. But if I had left a sector with 25,000 vacancies that it could not fill, a legacy of creativity being erased from our communities and our classrooms and, most of all, a £22 billion economic black hole that working-class people are paying the price for up and down the country—all of that—and then had such a resounding rejection from the electorate only a few months ago, I would be speaking with a little bit more humility from the Dispatch Box.
[Official Report, 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 319.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:
Lisa Nandy
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, and I am grateful to her not just for her welcome today and her warm words but for the support that she and others on the Opposition Benches have given me and the team to take up the mantle. But if I had left the creative industries with 49,000 vacancies that they could not fill, a legacy of creativity being erased from our communities and our classrooms and, most of all, a £22 billion economic black hole that working-class people are paying the price for up and down the country—all of that—and then had such a resounding rejection from the electorate only a few months ago, I would be speaking with a little bit more humility from the Dispatch Box.
Written Statements
National Procurement Policy Statement
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Today the Government are publishing a national procurement policy statement that sets out our priorities for public procurement and maximises the impact of every pound spent. This will come into effect alongside the commencement of the Procurement Act 2023 on Monday 24 February. The Government are determined to ensure that the £400 billion of public money spent on public procurement annually delivers economic growth, supports small businesses, champions innovation, and creates good jobs and opportunities across the country.
For too long, small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary, community and social enterprises have been held back by Government procurement processes that are too slow, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Therefore, today, the Government are also announcing new measures to support the transformation of public procurement and deliver on the Government’s plan for small businesses.
New rules will require all Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies to set three-year targets for direct spend with SMEs (from 1 April 2025) and VCSEs (from 1 April 2026) and publish progress annually. On top of this, regular spot checks will ensure smaller companies in the supply chain are paid within 30 days. This builds on previous interventions in the Budget that require Government Departments to exclude suppliers from bidding for major contracts if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment of invoices. We will be reforming the way social value is taken into account in central Government procurement, streamlining the current model to focus on delivery of our missions, and taking forward new standards on fair work in support of our growth mission.
The new national procurement policy statement sets out an expectation for the public sector to maximise procurement spend with SMEs and VCSEs. It sets out how early market engagement and collaboration combined with a clear pipeline of projects can help deliver this. To support local businesses the Government have listened to concerns from local authorities and are working to implement changes to allow them to reserve competitions for low-value contracts for local small businesses and social enterprises.
A new commercial innovation hub will foster procurement innovation by trialling new approaches to service design and procurement. Delivering on the commitment in the blueprint for modern digital government, we will explore establishing a digital commercial centre of excellence bringing together digital and commercial expertise to make it possible to buy once and well, and to open up opportunities for small and medium businesses to work on digital transformation.
This Government are clear that we want the value of contracts to go into delivering for citizens, and are making changes to deliver value for money in procurement through stronger expectations around commercial capability and contract management. A new online register of commercial agreements will increase visibility of frameworks and fees, curbing excessive profits. We will deploy new artificial intelligence commercial tools to cut bureaucracy, boost productivity, and free up commercial staff for higher-value tasks.
To build on this progress, the Government will consult on further reforms to our public procurement processes to drive economic growth, support small businesses, and better support innovation. This consultation is intended to inform the development of primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.
The Government will update their sourcing playbook and consult on introducing a new public interest test for contracting authorities to assess, at the outset of a procurement process, whether work should be outsourced or if it could be done more effectively, and drive better value for money, in house. This will strengthen market stewardship in procurement and ensure there is a rigorous evaluation of the broader public interest of in-house, outsourced or hybrid delivery models, ensuring that decisions properly reflect long-term value for taxpayers and are aligned with Government priorities.
This transformative package of reform ensures public procurement delivers real benefits for taxpayers, businesses and communities alike. By setting ambitious targets for small business spend and aligning social value with our missions, we are driving economic growth, strengthening supply chains, and fostering innovation. By maximising the power of public procurement, we will fuel job creation around the country, drive local and national outcomes and ensure that every pound spent delivers the maximum value for the people of this country.
[HCWS449]
Contingencies Fund Advance: National Savings and Investments
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
HM Treasury has agreed additional resource DEL and capital DEL funding of £88,414,000 for National Savings and Investments (NS&I) as part of spending review 2025 phase 1 during the 2024 autumn Budget. The additional resource supports NS&I’s business transformation programme which will see it transition to a modernised operating model, with multiple service delivery partners. The funding also supports the capital DEL requirements for NS&I’s moving between offices in London.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £40,630,000 and capital of £17,120,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for NS&I. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £57,750,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS453]
Bank of England and Treasury: Financial Relationship
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I can announce today the conclusion of a Bank of England and HM Treasury five-yearly review of the Bank’s capital framework parameters, as set out in section 2B of the Bank and HM Treasury financial relationship memorandum of understanding.
The review concluded that:
The capital framework has been effective in delivering its intended objectives at inception in 2018: to ensure that the Bank is equipped with capital resources consistent with the monetary and financial stability remits it has been given by Parliament.
The existing parameters of the capital framework remain adequate to support the Bank’s balance sheet.[1]
The existing Bank-HMT financial arrangements, as set out in the MoU, are sufficient to support the bank’s planned transition to a demand-driven operating framework fully backed by repo.[2]
The Bank and HM Treasury will keep these arrangements under review during the Bank’s balance sheet transition to a new steady state in coming years, ensuring close engagement as per the existing governance and information sharing channels set out in the MoU.
The Bank and HM Treasury have updated the MoU accordingly, and this can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-hm-treasury-and-the-bank-of-england-2025
[1] The parameters of the capital framework include a target, a floor, and a ceiling. As set out in the 2018 letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor, the values of the capital parameters are £0.5 billion for the floor, £3.5 billion for the target and £5.5 billion for the ceiling. This letter can be accessed at https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2018/governor-letter-210618.pdf
[2] Further detail on the transition of the Bank’s operating framework can be accessed through the following attachments:
“Transitioning to a repo-led operating framework”—Bank of England https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2024/dp/transitioning-to-a-repo-led-operating-framework
“The importance of central bank reserves”—lecture by Andrew Bailey https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/may/andrew-bailey-lecture-london-school-of-economics-charles-goodhart
“Let’s get ready to repo”—speech by Victoria Saporta https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/july/victoria-saporta-speech-at-afme-seminar
[HCWS456]
Syria: Sanctions
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Today I am updating the House on the future of the UK’s Syria sanctions regime following the welcome fall of Assad’s dictatorship late last year.
Sanctions remain a powerful foreign and security policy tool, and this Government are committed to maximising their impact, which includes reviewing their use in light of changing circumstances.
Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government will bring forward measures in the coming months adapting the Syria sanctions regime, including amendments to the Syria regulations, which Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to debate.
We are making these changes to support the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and to promote security and stability. They will include the relaxation of restrictions that apply to the energy, transport and finance sectors, and provisions to further support humanitarian delivery.
The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates to account for their actions against the people of Syria. We will ensure that asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of the former regime remain in force.
In this way, the FCDO will continue to use sanctions in a manner that is targeted, proportionate and robust to hold accountable those responsible for atrocious crimes committed during Assad’s reign and to support what we hope will be Syria’s transition to a more secure, prosperous and stable future.
[HCWS451]
Firearms Licensing Consultation: Government Response
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation that was run by the previous Government on firearms licensing controls. The consultation ran between 29 June and 23 August 2023. The consultation sought views on recommendations that were made to the Government by the senior coroner in his prevention of future deaths reports following inquests into the deaths of the five people who were shot and killed in Keyham on 12 August 2021; on recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following its investigation into the police force involved; and recommendations made by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee following its review of firearms licensing regulations which followed on from a fatal shooting by a licensed shotgun holder on the Isle of Skye on 10 August 2022.
A total of 91,385 responses to the consultation were received either online or by post and email and we are grateful to all those who took the time to respond. The Government response sets out the actions that the Government intend to take to further strengthen firearms licensing controls.
The previous Government decided not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to consider greater alignment of shotgun and firearms controls and legislation. The Government are, however, mindful that the shootings in both Keyham and Skye involved lawfully held shotguns, and that there have been other incidents involving shotguns since these tragic events occurred. We therefore take the view that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and to consider whether changes should be made to better protect the public. We intend to publish a new consultation on this issue later this year.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS450]
Crown Land: Planning Permission for Development
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Planning is principally a local activity, but it is a well-established principle that in limited circumstances, and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions.
Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose, and it is telling that it has never once been used.
I am therefore confirming today that the Government will implement two new routes by which Crown bodies can apply for planning permission for development on Crown land in England, as legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
The first route, referred to as the Crown development route, will allow planning applications for Crown developments which are considered of “national importance” to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities.
Allowing such planning applications to be determined in this manner will allow for a more timely and proportionate process. Applications taken through this route will still be determined on the basis of their planning merits, with due consideration of local and national planning policy, and local communities and local planning authorities will still be fully engaged throughout the decision-making process and their views taken into account.
This process will be led by an independent planning inspector, with the inspector usually taking the decision, with provision for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the final decision where deemed appropriate.
The second route, an updated urgent Crown development process, will enable applications for “nationally important” development that is needed “urgently” to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to, and dealt with directly by, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
The Government believe that it is vital to ensure these routes are in place, and it is our sincere hope that it will remain a matter of cross-party consensus that where circumstances warrant it, decisions on nationally important development by the Crown can and should be made appropriately at the national level.
However, as I argued in opposition during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, it is imperative that such powers are used only where necessary, and that appropriate safeguards to their use are put in place. Where they are used, I also want to ensure there is transparency not just with those involved, but with Parliament. In implementing these routes, we have been careful to account for both points, which I will address in turn.
First, these new routes can only be used if the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government considers the proposed development from a Crown body to be of “national importance”. To this end, all applications must be accompanied by a statement setting out why the development is considered to meet that criteria.
The Secretary of State will in general only consider a development to be of national importance if, in her opinion, the development would:
involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments;
contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as new prisons, defence, or border infrastructure;
support a response to international, national, or regional civil emergencies;
or otherwise have significant economic, social, or environmental effects and strong public interest at a regional or national level.
For urgent Crown development, the Secretary of State must in addition be satisfied that the development subject to the application is genuinely needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will only consider this to be the case where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development will need to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe that is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including Crown development, and will need evidence of the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe.
Secondly, where these routes are used, the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency at every stage. This will take the form of three distinct steps:
First, where an application is accepted by the Secretary of State, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified at the same time as the applicant and the relevant local planning authorities. A notification will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will include details as to where the application can be viewed and the process that will follow.
Secondly, at the point of decision, and again at the same time as the applicant and relevant local planning authorities, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified of either the grant or refusal of planning permission, and this letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Thirdly, on an annual basis, I will publish a report of all decisions taken under these routes, including a link to the decision letters, which again will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am confident that, taken together, these steps will ensure Members are properly appraised of any applications being considered through these routes that relate to their constituencies, and will provide the House as a whole with the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation. The Government will keep these steps under review as the routes begin to be used.
Finally, with regards to implementation, I have today laid draft regulations which make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and other primary legislation, as well as to planning application fee regulations, to reflect the two new Crown development routes.
These regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, enabling Parliament to debate them. To support scrutiny ahead of parliamentary debates, I will publish in draft the regulations setting out the procedures for both routes, which will be laid following parliamentary approval of the affirmative regulations. Our aim, subject to parliamentary approval, is to bring both routes into force in April 2025. Further guidance will be published on the operation of the two routes closer to implementation.
[HCWS454]
Large-scale Housing Site Delivery
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The delivery of significant numbers of large-scale housing developments in England is integral to driving economic growth and meeting the Government’s ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
I am today updating the House on the progress that is being made to build out large sites across the country and to take forward the next generation of new towns.
The next generation of new towns
The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned and beautiful surroundings. This Government will continue to invest in their regeneration, but we also remain committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns.
In September 2024, we established an independent New Towns Taskforce and tasked the experts on it with identifying and recommending locations for new towns within 12 months. Over the past five months, the taskforce has made significant progress. Its nationwide call for evidence, which invited proposals for sites with the potential to accommodate large-scale new communities of at least 10,000 homes, attracted over 100 submissions from every region in England, demonstrating the enthusiasm that exists across the country to be part of this transformative programme.
Today, the taskforce is publishing an update on its work, setting out the vision and aims of the programme, as well as the unique benefits it would deliver and the lessons learnt from a comprehensive review of the three phases of the post-war new towns programme.
The Government have been clear that we want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception, so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. We remain fully committed to creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.
We are therefore determined to ensure that the next generation of new towns are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving mixed communities, including public transport and services like GP surgeries and schools.
The taskforce is also today sharing its emerging thinking on how best to meet these expectations, setting out what principles should guide the delivery of the kind of new large-scale communities we want to create through the programme. The intention is to begin a national conversation about what constitutes an ideal new town, and a series of engagement events will be held with the residents of existing new towns to secure their insight.
The Government are clear that public investment, leadership, and focus will be needed to kick-start the delivery of the next generation of new towns. However, our clear long-term objective is to ensure that the settlements brought forward under the programme pay for themselves through the value they create. This requires that the price paid for land reflects the costs of quickly and efficiently providing the infrastructure, amenities and affordable housing essential to the creation of high-quality places. We look forward to receiving the taskforce’s recommendations as to how this can be best achieved.
The taskforce will submit its final report to the Deputy Prime Minister and I in the summer, setting out its recommended locations for potential new towns, and its view on how best to fund and deliver them. The Government will then make decisions on the basis of those recommendations and begin the process of initiating the programme.
The spending review will confirm the Government’s plans to provide certainty for this transformative programme, demonstrating our commitment to bringing forward sustainable new communities and unlocking economic growth across the country. In the immediate term, an initial £15 million has been allocated for the next financial year, to enable early scoping work on new sites to begin, ensuring delivery can start as soon as ministerial decisions have been made.
New homes accelerator
Following its launch in July 2024, the new homes accelerator has been working with national and local partners to speed up housing delivery on a series of large sites across the country.
These include seven sites that were previously announced, namely Liverpool central docks, Northstowe, Worcestershire Parkway, Langley Sutton Coldfield, Tendring Colchester Borders garden community, Stretton Hall, and Biggleswade garden community, which together have the potential to deliver more than 28,500 homes.
Through intensive engagement with other Departments and statutory consultees as a convener and broker, the accelerator has also helped progress a number of other sites with the capacity to deliver more than 20,000 homes.
The call for evidence that the accelerator launched last year identified 350 sites, with a combined potential delivery pipeline of approximately 700,000 homes, as requiring some form of support to progress.
Today, the accelerator is announcing that it will focus attention on three new sites: Frome Gateway regeneration area in Bristol, south of Cayton in Scarborough, and Beam Park in London. Together, these have the potential to deliver more than 7,400 homes.
The new homes accelerator is also providing £3 million of grant funding to local authorities for site-specific support. This will be supplemented by the ongoing direct advice provided by its dedicated team of built environment specialists. We are also announcing £1 million of funding to key statutory consultees and £2 million of funding to the Building Safety Regulator to accelerate processing of applications.
Regeneration funding
To further increase the supply of new homes, I am today announcing several new investments. These include confirming £29.6 million from the brownfield infrastructure and land fund to unlock 1,000 new homes in Broadford City Village; announcing £1.5 million to support a joint venture between Manchester city council and private partners to deliver a new district in Manchester Victoria North; and £20 million towards remediating small council-owned brownfield sites, as part of the brownfield land release fund.
[HCWS452]
Machinery of Government
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead 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 4 September 2024 I announced that the Government would respond in full to the Grenfell phase 2 inquiry report within six months. In response to one of the report’s recommendations, I am confirming today that responsibility for fire will move from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This change will bring responsibility for building safety and fire under a single Secretary of State, providing for a more coherent approach to keeping people safe from fire in their homes. The Home Office will retain management of the airwave service contract on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and will remain responsible for the emergency services mobile communications programme and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services.
This change will be effective from 1 April 2025. The Government will respond to the full report in due course.
[HCWS455]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes—but some Members may feel that we have had enough Divisions in the Chamber to last one week.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Thursday 13th February 2025
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (12 Feb 2025)
Baroness Pidgeon
“Impact on rural areas(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of the provisions of this Act on rural areas.(2) For the purposes of this section “rural” refers to areas so defined by the Rural Urban Classification.(3) The report in subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—(a) an assessment of the level of bus service provision in rural areas including frequency, coverage, and accessibility;(b) an evaluation of how the provisions of this Act affect access to public transport for residents in rural areas, with a focus on affordability, reliability, and inclusivity;(c) a review of the potential economic, social, and environmental impacts of any changes in transport services or infrastructure in rural areas as a result of this Act;(d) recommendations for any further actions or policies that may be required to ensure that rural areas are not disproportionately impacted by the provisions of this Act.(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to mitigate negative impacts on rural areas, if applicable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months on the impacts of the Act on rural areas.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Amendment 49 picks up on a crucial issue that I highlighted at Second Reading and said would be a key theme from these Benches: ensuring that rural areas receive a proper bus service for those often isolated and smaller communities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for signing this amendment.
Rural areas remain severely underserved when it comes to bus services, with provision often unreliable and inadequate. As I have mentioned previously, in areas such as North Shropshire an estimated 63% of bus miles have been cut since 2015. These reductions have had a significant impact on communities.
In general, urban local authorities have above-average levels of bus use per head when compared with rural areas. Department for Transport data shows that, for the year ended March 2024, in Brighton and Hove there were 147 passenger journeys per head of population, alongside Nottingham on 126. This compares with rural areas such as Rutland on three per head, Cheshire East on seven, and Somerset and Shropshire on eight per head of population. That is hardly surprising when these areas have seen significant cuts to their bus services in recent years.
Our amendments on socially necessary bus services, which we debated on Tuesday, would help address this issue, but so would this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act on the impact it is having on rural areas. We hope this focus on our rural communities will help to drive the integration and quality of bus services that our rural and smaller communities and villages deserve. This analysis would be a timely assessment, allowing for a prompt evaluation of the legislation and its impact on rural communities, and would help inform decision-makers, including local transport authorities, and ensure that rural communities’ needs are being met, improving their quality of life and access to services.
I draw attention to the evidence submitted to the Commons Transport Select Committee by the Campaign for National Parks, which flags that visitor travel is an important element of rural transport but that this aspect is often overlooked when considering the role of buses in connecting rural communities with nearby towns and cities. It particularly flagged the access to national parks by public transport. This adds another dimension to our amendment when considering rural bus services.
There are further amendments in this group that also look at rural bus services and villages and cover other important areas, to which I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 62. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which she has just spoken, is a very relevant one, and I think I spoke a little bit about it previously.
I suggest that it is important to know what we mean by public transport. This buses Bill is a great development of that, because it is designed to take people who do not have cars, or perhaps do not want to use cars, to shopping, to doctors and hospitals, to visit friends and relatives or whatever—to get around for communication. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is just as important in the rural areas as in the cities.
One element that I have discussed briefly with my noble friend the Minister is if people cannot get across because there is water in the way. Some of the water has bridges; some does not. Some has big ferries and some has small ferries, and, of course, many of the bridges are tolled. The River Tamar has a tolled ferry and bridge combined. The toll is not very high and you pay it only one way, which is interesting. There are smaller river crossings in Cornwall and many other places where people pay a few pounds to get across. Many people moan at the cost, especially if the tolls are private-sector operated, but they have to cover their costs and most of them are pretty reasonable.
There is a big campaign at the moment about the cost of ferries to the Isle of Wight. There are several of them, as noble Lords know. I do not express an opinion on the campaign or the cost, but people are suffering from an unreliable service, which affects them going to work, college, hospital and so on. For a big population—it is probably more than 100,000—that is quite significant.
On the Isles of Scilly, where I live, there are only 2,500 people but they still have to get to hospital and go shopping when the shops on the islands do not provide what they want. The costs there are pretty mind-boggling. In the summer, you cannot get from the mainland to the Isles of Scilly for less than £100 single. For some people, such as those on the national minimum wage, that is quite significant. If you want to fly, which has the added advantage of being a bit quicker—although it does not like the fog very much and so gets cancelled quite often—the cost sometimes goes up to £150.
This may be a situation where there should be some kind of public service obligation for a ferry, which is probably the cheapest and most reliable form of transport, but the ferry does not go in the winter. You can go on a jet boat, which carries 12 people and takes a couple of hours. If it is not bumpy, it is quite comfortable; if it is bumpy, I leave that to noble Lords’ imagination. Something needs to be done to provide some kind of reasonable public service for the 2,500 people who live on those islands and many others like them.
My Amendment 62 is designed to ask my noble friend to produce a report within six months. I am afraid he will be busy if he accepts all these amendments, but I would very much welcome some response. This is a problem for people who have less access to what is properly proposed in the Bill, which I very much support.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is an eclectic mix of amendments. My Amendment 53 focuses on effective governance arrangements, which are key to an effective transfer of powers to local transport authorities, leading to effective delivery of these significant and welcome changes to improve public bus services. The Government’s devolution proposals to create strategic authorities will, I presume, transfer responsibility for bus services from the existing arrangements to these new authorities. At the very same time, those areas of England with a two-tier system of local government will also be undergoing major changes as district councils are abolished and unitary councils are created.
Together, these reforms will result in considerable change in the administration of both local governance and elected governance, decision-making and accountability. Clearly, this is also happening—all three things together—at a time when the responsibility and accountability for public bus services occur and major powers are transferred to local transport authorities. Hence Amendment 53 in my name, which is there to probe what consideration the Government have given to providing guidance and support to those areas of local government that are subject to these significant changes.
Can the Minister share any insight into the arrangements that will be put in place to support councils during this transformation of their local transport responsibilities? For example, it is often necessary to aid effective change with initial additional resources, whether funding or access to experience and knowledgeable advice. The measures in the Bill will transform public bus services but, in my view, what must not happen is transformational change failing or being beset with difficulties for want of preparation on the governance side of the equation.
I feel quite strongly that this is an important area of the change that will take place but that it has perhaps not been given sufficient thought in the Bill, as it is presented to us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, as well as Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I remind the Committee of my interests as president of the Rural Coalition and a vice-president of the LGA.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill works to the benefit of rural communities. Transport in rural areas—and, often, the absence of it—has been a persistent problem. Poor service planning in rural areas, cuts in services and ill-considered centralisation have been repeat offenders, and we must make sure that the Bill does not miss the opportunity to improve things. While other government departments carry on planning their services based on urban delivery models, the costs they save by doing so are passed on to the providers of rural transport or rural individuals themselves.
Rural transport cannot be left to the market alone, even where there are state-directed requirements for socially necessary services to be taken into consideration. Franchising has the potential to be a solution to the rural public transport problem, but it must include cross-subsidy between rural and urban areas, and seasonal cross-subsidy when visitor income can be used to support wider community needs. It is vital that the requirement in the devolution White Paper not to leave orphaned rural areas off the map of strategic authorities also applies to bus franchising.
When and if bus franchising is done right and rural public transport can be meaningfully relied on by residents, it is a step towards enabling the rural economy’s productivity to increase and for it to make the contribution it is capable of towards national growth. Without tackling this, it will continue to lag behind. The Rural Coalition, of which I am president, recently published a Pragmatix report looking at the huge untapped potential of rural areas in contributing to the economy of our nation. But we need to get certain things right, of which transport is one.
For these reasons, it is not only prudent but urgently necessary that the Bill includes requirements to produce a rural impact assessment, as outlined in Amendment 49 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Government policy has an unfortunate track record of not appearing to rural-proof things properly. I have pressed the Minister in the Chamber on this a couple of times recently, asking for help on the strategies and matrices being used by government departments on rural-proofing. So far, I cannot get any information on that. This amendment, alongside Amendment 78, would help us move forward.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 49, to which I added my name. I will also speak to Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These are two very similar amendments saying pretty much the same thing. Their timeframe is different, but if we are to have this new Jerusalem of connected bus services that help people—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, commented about the outer fringes—we really need to know that this is happening. We need to concentrate it and we need it reported back to us.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, to which my name is attached, and remind your Lordships that I am president of the Local Government Association. From 2011 to 2023, England saw a 20% reduction in bus service provision, adjusted to a 28% per capita decrease amid population growth. The withdrawal of essential bus routes has isolated residents, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, from critical services and social opportunities. Despite overall national decline, particular regional disparities have hit areas such as North Yorkshire, Rutland, Shropshire and Slough. The government investment of £3.5 billion since the pandemic into initiatives such as the £2 fare cap and examples of community-led efforts to subsidise services demonstrate awareness of the problem, but this alone cannot create a more comprehensive bus network.
Transport for All believes that the Government’s proposed increase in funding is an opportunity to address the challenges faced by rural areas. However, in rural areas disabled people are more likely to rely on buses than non-disabled people. They are often impacted by inaccessible bus stops and poor connectivity, but buses are essential for accessing employment, healthcare and social inclusion. Rural bus services often exacerbate isolation and inequality, highlighting the urgent need for reforms that prioritise accessibility and inclusivity as an absolute must. In a survey carried out by Transport for All, 48% of respondents cited barriers to access on buses.
The English national concessionary travel scheme—ENCTS—is fantastic, but it cannot be used before 9.30 am, which creates barriers to employment for disabled people in these areas. New funding has been announced for rural and smaller authorities to provide for ENCTS enhancements. This would promote greater accessibility, similar to that in areas such as London and Merseyside, where disabled people can travel for free at any point of the day. It is really important that we look at this in rural areas—otherwise, it is going to exclude lots of people.
On the second day in Committee I covered issues on the accessibility of bus stops, ramps and shelters. This is even more important in rural communities, where there might be several hours between bus services, but we should also recognise that buses are critical to the local economy. Buses are socially necessary in rural areas, and it is vital that these services are maintained and expanded to meet community needs, especially for disabled people.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is impossible to disagree with the amendment that the Committee is discussing. We have heard the usual comprehensive proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I rise only to ask that if she is not happy—and none of us could be happy about the decline in rural bus services—how can that decline be reversed and who will be responsible for reversing it? Presumably, the Government will be expected to adequately fund the sorts of services that the Liberal Democrats and the right reverend Prelate envisage. We all know that is not going to happen in the short term. No doubt, it will enable the Liberal Democrats to blame somebody else—
Lord Snape (Lab)
Well, life is not fair. These are the realities of running bus services. I just remind the noble Baroness who accuses me of not being fair that I used to chair a major bus operator. It was employee-owned for much of the time and faced the same financial constraints and problems under the coalition Government—of which, if I remember rightly, the Liberal Democrats were a part.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Stop being snide. I am sorry—I should not intervene, as I came late.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
As far as I have heard on this third day in Committee and at Second Reading, there has been a majority consensus for the Government’s proposals. What we are trying to do is to draw out those issues that we hope the Government will be able to address. One, as we have heard this afternoon, is rural bus services—and, indeed, access for island services. Equally, we understand that that will probably mean more funding. We had a debate on that on an earlier day in Committee. This is not about criticism or blame; it is about pulling out the issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I wonder if I could interrupt the noble Baroness to say that I hope that she realises that this Bill does not give the Government powers to run bus services. The whole point of this Bill is to give powers to local government to run bus services. When she says, “We want the Government to address these issues”, it is unclear to me to what she is referring. If she says that she wants the Government to provide funding to address these issues, that is fine, but if the funding is to be specific and hypothecated to particular purposes—say, to the crossing of bodies of water or certain rural services—then what is the point of giving the powers to local government? They should be making those decisions, wherever the funding comes from. I find the Liberal Democrat position on these provisions very difficult to follow.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am not sure who is giving way to whom at the present time. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in a moment or two, because I would be fascinated to hear his summing up of this matter—I wait with bated breath. Having gorged on those subsidies when he worked for TfL, while his party denuded the rest of the country of bus services, his response will be absolutely fascinating.
I ask the noble Baroness—I hope without causing too much offence—that if these proposals are to be properly implemented, who will provide the finance? It has to be either local or central government. The reality of these matters is that, in the short term, there will not be a massive improvement in rural bus services once this Bill becomes law. I only wish that the opposite were true. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that it will be true. However, until we know exactly how funds will be allocated and how great those funds are, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that, as ably as she moved this amendment, it is, as far as I can see, rather typical of the Liberal Democrats—all motherhood and apple pie.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I mentioned at Second Reading that I had been chairman of the North Wales Transport Commission in 2023-24. I spent a lot of time in north Wales looking at the performance of the bus services there. I am wholly persuaded of the merits of a franchising system in rural areas as well as in more urban areas, because we all know the problems that the existing system has created. However, I should point out—this follows the previous intervention—that doing this work and deciding which routes need to be run and where people wish to go is a time-consuming business. It will take a significant period to monitor where the car journeys are presently being taken and what kind of network is best going to meet the needs of people. I find the notion that there should be review of this within six months or even two years very ambitious, because in the work that I was engaged in it was time-consuming to get anywhere near a feel of how to create an integrated network rather than just a set of buses that were serving individual parts of the of the area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. We on our side are supportive of the importance of taking into account the needs of people dwelling in rural areas. Indeed, we have our own amendment to a very similar effect in a later group, which could have been disposed of here. Our proposal to the Liberal Democrats was that it be wrapped up with their proposals, but that was rejected, so now it is going to be debated as a separate group, somewhat repetitiously, towards the end of the list. So we generally support this.
A lot of what I wanted to say has been anticipated. I know that he does not like the fact that he and I agree on quite a lot of things, but the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has brought a dose of sensible realism to the debate, for the first time, perhaps, in our Committee. He was supported in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with his practical knowledge of having examined the bus routes, the lack of bus routes and the potential bus routes in north Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said that this Bill will transform bus services. As shorthand for an aspiration, that is fair enough, but the Bill in itself is not going to transform bus services at all, although that might be the aim. What it is going to do is transform the governance of bus services in two ways, both of them subject to the provision of very large amounts of money, which can come only from central Government and which is not apparent at the moment, although we are all aware that a spending review is in hand. Who knows what will happen? You stick in your thumb and pull out a plum. Who knows what is going to arrive for bus services or rural bus services when the Chancellor has completed her work? At the moment, we cannot say. We can say only that a large amount of money will be needed.
The two respects in which the governance will be changed to which I wish to draw attention are, first, that operational decisions about the running of buses are going to be transferred fundamentally from managers of bus service companies, who have a great deal of experience, to committees of councillors with very much less experience. They will take advice, no doubt, and the Government have said that they are going to offer them the advice of the Bus Centre of Excellence to do the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to. They include, particularly, route planning, but these councillors will also be responsible for fare setting, and fares and ticketing is a great skill and art. We might all think that it is terribly easy to decide on a bus fare, but the whole business of fares and ticketing is a professional and skilled business. There is a great deal that they are going to have to do which they will now be responsible for, which previously they were not, with very little skills support because the Bus Centre of Excellence is a relatively small operation.
The other way in which the governance is going to be transformed—and this is what relates to my three amendments in this group, which I will dispose of briefly in a moment—is that for the first time, effectively, the Secretary of State is going to be issuing guidance that will shape the provision of bus services in a way that simply is not the case when bus services are provided privately. As far as I am aware, that is not the case in Manchester, let us say, where there is no great guidance coming from the Government. Manchester has adopted franchising powers already. But there will be guidance and the local transport authorities, in providing bus services, are going to be subject to it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to place a statutory requirement on reviewing the Bill’s impact on rural areas and villages. I also heard clearly the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and, incidentally, I agree with him about the need for cross-subsidy to help bus routes that are not in themselves profitable.
I note and understand the importance of serving villages and rural areas. Indeed, the Government intend the choices available to local transport authorities in the Bill to address just those points—including, for the avoidance of doubt, as we discussed this on a previous day, the appropriate use of demand-responsive transport.
The monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, which include the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. It will take several years—up to five years—for local authorities to transition to a franchised network or to form local authority bus companies, so any review prior to this would not be able to consider the full impact of any such transition. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I have very high regard for the work that he did in both south Wales and north Wales; he made elegantly that very point. In addition, the full impact of franchising is not expected to be seen until franchising schemes have been operating for some time. Therefore, the timing of a full assessment of impacts on local services needs to reflect that timeline.
I say to my noble friend Lord Snape that while a dose of realism is always a good thing in a discussion about the future, the evidence from the stages of franchising in Manchester is that a remarkable change in both the reliability of the bus service and the volumes of patronage and revenue has been seen as a consequence of the introduction of franchising in various phases.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I respectfully point out that Manchester is scarcely a rural area, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, specifies rural areas. It might be a bit more difficult to run cross-country services in rural areas than it is to run a franchising operation in cities such as Greater Manchester.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend for that observation. I should have also mentioned the situation in Cornwall, which is more or less franchising and in an area that can be called rural, where the consequence of a decent set of organised services in a rural area has been a considerable increase in patronage. My noble friend’s point about realism is right, and I think the real point of what he was saying is that these things take some time to mature and come into effect.
On rural areas, there is no doubt that considerable damage has been done to public transport by an approach necessitated by the previous Government’s funding mechanisms, which have reintroduced routes that were withdrawn, withdrawn again routes that were reintroduced and given a lack of continuity to services that need it in order for people to rely on them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward Amendment 53 about statutory changes to local council powers. The Government believe that such changes will be wholly beneficial to communities in the United Kingdom. There may be legislation in this Session that alters the powers of local councils to provide them further powers on transport. Given the proximity in timing of any such legislation to this Bill, it would not be appropriate to provide such a review, as the powers would not have had sufficient time to be in force.
I appreciate that this Bill and the English devolution Bill, as well as the forthcoming railway reform Bill, will or may have related provisions to enhance the role of local councils, and we will work closely across and between departments to ensure that they most effectively give local councils control over their own transport networks. In respect of buses, the extensive guidance already available on enhanced partnerships in franchising from government, and the Bus Centre of Excellence, which has been referred to previously, will be available.
Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to review within six months the Bill’s impact on certain local transport services. I refer to the remarks I have already made about the length of time it would take to take a good view about changes. I know that my noble friend is a long-standing campaigner on ferry services and the important role they play in connecting communities. I also note his description of the ferry service to the Isles of Scilly as “bumpy”, which is undoubtedly true. I agree that these services provide a crucial lifeline for many communities and ensure that people can access essential services, as he says.
The noble Lord also asked at Second Reading about tram services. Again, they are an important part. However, the meaning of this Bill is clear: it is focused on the provision of local bus services and a tram is clearly not a bus—a ferry is even less so. On ferries, though, I understand that the Isles of Scilly Council has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding both this matter and broader support for the islands. I hope that the noble Lord will note that I have said that.
Turning to Amendment 73, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing it forward. The Committee will have heard the noble Lord’s remarks about the handling of passenger complaints. The Government remain committed to ensuring that services are continuously improved with passengers. This amendment is consistent with our approach to rail, for which guidance on how to resolve complaints already exists. I agree with the noble Lords that it is important to deal with complaints properly, but it is my view that, apart from the handling of the original complaint, the resolution role sits with passenger watchdogs. The department is in the process of undertaking work with existing passenger watchdogs—Transport Focus and London TravelWatch—and bus stakeholders to identify issues and make recommendations on embedding standardised complaint-handling processes, ensuring that passengers have clear escalation. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the way to deal with complaints is not to file them in the waste-paper basket, but I do not wish to cut across the engagement that is currently under way.
I shall now address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about help for local transport authorities in route planning and fare setting. Of course, he has missed the fact that virtually every local transport authority in Britain has existing experience in both since, for the past 40 years, they have had to tender services that have not been found by commercial bus services to be worth running. I cannot believe that there is a local transport authority in the country that does not have some experience of both route planning and fare setting.
Amendment 79B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose new requirements on the provision of real-time passenger information. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that ensuring that passengers can access high-quality, real-time information about their services is critical, but he will, I hope, be aware that there are existing obligations on bus operators. The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 provide the foundation for those obligations and, from these regulations, the Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 to facilitate the provision of high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information across England, outside London. The Government will continue to work with local authorities and the sector to help drive improvements in real-time information.
I know that the noble Lord will have noted the part of our earlier discussion about the requirement in this Bill to ensure that real-time information is available on an accurate basis; the worst thing you can have is inaccurate real-time information. However, this Bill is also about empowering local areas. Part of that is trusting them to take decisions on what is best for the communities that they serve and working with them constructively, particularly in areas where there are existing regulations to ensure that services are improved. This is why I believe that the noble Lord’s Amendment 79B is not necessary.
Turning to Amendment 79D, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing it forward. As he said, it is about working with local transport authorities and airport operators, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. My department is currently carrying out a call for ideas for the integrated national transport strategy, which will set out a single national vision. This will have people who use transport and their needs at its heart and will empower local leaders to develop integrated transport solutions. As part of the Bill, we want better links across modes—links that connect people and businesses and support the economy. We are working with operators, local authorities and passengers in that way to deliver more reliable public transport networks in general. The noble Lord will, I hope, understand that I do not wish to cut across the engagement on the integrated national transport strategy that is currently under way.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks in response to my amendment. He said in passing that a tram is not a bus, which is of course true, but it often fulfils the same role as a bus by moving lots of people in relative comfort. A lightweight tram scheme is now being built in Coventry, which I hope will be working in the next few years. It is very much cheaper to build, which is excellent, because it needs lighter track work. However, the question of who decides the timetable and fares of that tram and any bus service that Coventry City Council might wish to encourage will need looking at in future. Has the Minister’s department thought about that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. First, the ultra-light tram development in Coventry is still a tram—it has steel wheels on steel rails, so it is still a tram. Secondly, all those schemes, even ones that will, I hope, produce a relative reduction in capital cost, have to be considered through the Transport and Works Act orders and other mechanisms for building infrastructure. The consequence of that is that those schemes are generally under the control of public authorities and are almost always in urban areas. One of the consequences of the freedoms that this Bill will give to local transport authorities will be the introduction of franchising, binding together all the public transport services in those conurbations, including both timetables and fares, to give an integrated service to citizens who live in those towns and cities.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The Minister has clearly heard the strength of feeling from across the Committee about rural communities and the importance of connectivity and access to bus services. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about funding are important, because funding is always the elephant in the room. But what we are discussing are new measures, including franchising, which will be the new tool to help local government and local transport authorities to address some of these socially necessary routes—not profitable routes—as part of bus route packages. Our amendments simply try to improve this legislation; we are very supportive, overall, of its aims. I am reassured to have heard from the Minister about this wider review and ensuring that rural communities and areas are part of that, so I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Review of bus fare impact on patronage(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a comprehensive review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their jurisdiction.(2) The review may assess—(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends,(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures,(c) potential changes to improve accessibility and increase patronage, and(d) potential benefits, if any, of the simplification of ticketing systems for the purposes of increasing bus patronage.(3) The first review must be completed and published no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.(4) Subsequent reviews must be conducted at least once every three years, and made publicly available.(5) In conducting the review, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant by the local transport authority.”
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 51 would require local transport authorities to carry out a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger numbers within their area. The review must look at how fare levels are influencing numbers; the social, economic and environmental outcomes of the current fare structure; ways to simplify ticketing systems; and changes to increase bus patronage and improve accessibility. This review should be carried out within six months of the Act passing and every three years, working with all key stakeholders.
We feel that there is a significant gap in the Bill relating to fares. The final-stage impact assessment states:
“Increased fares, unreliable services and fewer routes would likely drive more people away from buses, further reducing passenger numbers”.
Helen Morgan, Member of Parliament for North Shropshire, told me that Shropshire has lost more bus routes than any other county and that the £2 fare cap was not introduced in Shropshire. Fares are significantly higher and a six-mile journey into Shrewsbury can cost as much as £6.20. It is therefore essential that local transport authorities assess the impact that fares are having, alongside other factors, in the provision of local bus services following the implementation of this Bill.
I also have Amendments 74 and 80 in this group, which together place a limit of £2 on single journey bus fares, which can be reviewed every three years and adjusted by statutory instrument. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. The £1 rise per journey adds up quickly, straining already tight budgets and forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. For rural communities where alternatives are few, the impact is even greater. Without addressing fares in this Bill, we risk deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. I remind Members that the final stage impact assessment states:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
We also strongly believe that affordable public transport promotes greener travel choices. It helps to cut carbon emissions and eases road congestion. In many parts of the country, it remains cheaper to drive than to take the bus. This is a disincentive, and putting a £2 cap on bus fares would go some way to helping to address it. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have a choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, there is a huge hole in this plan. I hope the Minister can address these concerns and respond to our proposal to keep bus fares affordable across the country.
On the previous group we had a discussion about real-time passenger information and open data. Another issue linked to the price of fares is the accessibility of purchasing tickets. There has been a transformation in purchasing rail tickets, despite the fare structure being incredibly complex, through tech innovation and apps. One would want to see, as part of these changes to improve bus services, bus retail being opened up to third-party organisations to allow innovation and the ability for passengers to purchase bus tickets or rail-bus packages. When the Minister comments on our amendments, will he also reflect on improving the Bus Open Data Service and on how opening this area further might transform the passenger experience? I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this group is full of sensible amendments. I will speak to the two in my name, Amendments 77 and 79. Amendment 72 is about the concessionary travel scheme—the £2 fare cap—which has been an immense success. In the village where I live in Dorset, it has changed people’s lives. All sorts of people now do not use their cars, which saves them an awful lot of money that they can spend on things such as heating. They do not need to use their cars, they do not need to pay for parking, and they do not need the maintenance of their cars. It has made a huge difference, and many of those people are not looking forward to it going up at the end of the year to £3. It definitely increases usership. It was interesting to read Amendment 63 from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, presumably in support of the £2 fare cap, which I think is wonderful.
Amendment 79 is about a slightly different issue. It is about encouraging children to start using buses. Most children in the area I live in have to use buses to get to school if their parents cannot afford a car or cannot afford to drive them. I think it is very good practice to get children on the buses early and encourage them to understand that it is something that everybody can do. Also, to some extent, it is a little bit of independence for them. As a Green, I struggle slightly with the idea that any travel should be cheaper than walking and cycling. However, in this instance I think it is sensible to make bus travel free for children, simply because there are so many other accumulated costs on their parents. I think this would be a very good move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 standing in my name. We are fully aware that fares must contribute to funding our public transport system, particularly when it comes to meeting essential social needs. However, we must also acknowledge the significant impact that fare levels have on passenger demand. This is especially relevant given His Majesty’s Government’s recent decision to raise the bus fare cap by 50%.
We are proud of our own record, particularly in extending the £2 bus fare cap throughout 2024. That policy, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, provided crucial support to passengers across the country, especially in low-income areas where bus services are a lifeline for many. It is therefore imperative that we fully understand the impact of increasing fares on those who rely most on these services.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government carry out and publish a comprehensive impact assessment on the economic and social consequences of removing the £2 bus fare cap. This assessment must include, but not be limited to, the potential impact on passenger numbers; the financial implications for local transport authorities; the effect on accessibility for those who depend on bus fares for essential travel; and the impact on passengers’ ability to reach socially necessary services, as defined in Clause 12.
We do not believe that His Majesty’s Government conducted such a detailed assessment before announcing the increase to the fare cap. However, they still have the opportunity to do so now. By undertaking that assessment, the Government can ensure that future decisions are based on sound evidence and a clear understanding of the impact on those who depend on public transport the most. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider this amendment and commit to a full and transparent assessment of the impact of increasing the bus fare cap.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I will offend too many people if I say that no one could object to this amendment. Fares play an important role, but I do not think we should overemphasise the role they play. Travel West Midlands, a company with which I was involved for some years, did regular passenger surveys—largely a tick-box exercise, for obvious reasons, handed out by the driver or staff at bus stops. Funnily enough, fares never topped the list of complaints; reliability, congestion and safety all came before fares for passengers in the West Midlands. That is not to play down the impact of fares on passenger carrying, but it should be kept in perspective.
As for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I kept count at Second Reading, and that is 11 different reviews, reports and committees that the Conservative Party has so far advanced in the debates on this legislation. I hope that management time—or ministerial time, for that matter—can perhaps concentrate more on running effective services and less on producing reports to the demand of the Conservative Party, largely about matters that its period in office considerably worsened for the bus industry.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am again very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. I am surprised that I have to help the noble Lord, Lord Snape, understand that very frequently in Committee, as a way in which to provoke some sort of debate or to probe the Government’s intentions, it might be appropriate to ask for a report without necessarily wanting to amend the Bill in that direction when we come to Report—ill named, perhaps. I am sure he realises that his jibe against the Conservative Party has fallen flat.
I was rather pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that she would welcome opening things up to the private sector to develop interesting, innovative and technological apps and ways of paying. I think that is the first thing we have heard said in favour of the private sector in Committee so far.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Snape—what he was saying was to some extent a response to what the noble Baroness had been saying—bring us to the heart of a debate that most politicians try to run away from: how bus services and other public transport are to be paid for. What is the role of fares in paying for them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 51 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would require local transport authorities to review the impact of bus fares on patronage. Where a local transport authority has delivered fare interventions to encourage patronage, such as Cornwall’s bus fares pilot and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor’s fare intervention, they have already commissioned independent evaluation reports to measure their success. Bus service improvement plans already in place also include measures addressing bus fares to encourage greater use of buses. We must recognise that changes to fares are usually delivered at the same time as other transport interventions that support and improve bus services. It would therefore be challenging to attribute any change in patronage solely to a change in the fare charged to passengers.
Your Lordships will have noted that the Government are in the process of negotiating the outcomes for which local transport authorities will be held accountable in respect of buses, as part of their recent respective comprehensive funding settlements. In addition to outcome monitoring at a local level, we will continue to monitor fare impacts at a national level to inform future fare cap decisions.
In passing, I note the noble Baroness’s observations about whether Shropshire adopted the £2 fare cap. I am informed that all except six bus services in Shropshire were covered, although I would not say that the bus network in Shropshire was either adequate or satisfactory. One of the effects of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be to enable local transport authorities to do better by the various means embraced within it. I therefore submit that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is unnecessary because of the actions already taking place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for Amendment 63, which seeks to examine the impact of ending the £2 national bus fare cap. The department has prepared a full monitoring and evaluation report of the £2 national bus fare cap, which has just been published. The report is available to read and I will make sure that noble Lords present have the link to it. It suggests that urban populations are more likely to have used the scheme, where of course journeys are shorter and fares are more likely to be £2 or less. In fact, the average fare payable on buses prior to the scheme’s introduction was between £2 and £3. The Government’s adoption of a £3 cap, and the added safeguard of increases above £2 being limited to the rate of inflation, do a great deal, at the cost of £150 million, to continue to ensure that millions can access better opportunities and get greater bus use.
Lord Moylan (Con)
A study of the effect of the £2 bus cap would be very valuable—let us remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that in her rural part of Dorset it was transformative; I think that was the word she used about it having a significant effect in that part of the world—and we look forward to reading it. But my noble friend Lord Effingham was also asking for a study of what the effect of increasing it would be when that is introduced, which would be equally valuable and show the other part of the equation, if noble Lords see what I mean. I press the Minister because I do not want him to miss the point inadvertently. Is a similar study of the effect of increasing the cap to £3 after an appropriate period—six months or a year—something to which he can commit himself today to illuminate that picture for us?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I will certainly think about whether, and at what stage, the department would look at that further. I am certainly not going to commit to it today, because we are looking at wide-ranging legislation about bus services in general, but I wanted to inform the Committee that the work on the £2 bus fare cap is now published.
Amendments 74 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also concern the £2 bus fare cap, which I have just addressed. They are clearly intended to seek its reintroduction. Bearing in mind what the average bus fare is, that the Government are proposing to continue with a £3 cap and that fares between £2 and £3 will go up only by the rate of inflation, I hope she will agree that those amendments are unnecessary. However, the noble Baroness referred to the wider retailing of bus tickets, which is obviously a good idea; from time to time, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Access to bus services should be widely available, and not understanding the fare structure or being able to buy a bus ticket are the worst reasons for not using the service.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, the provisions in this Bill that allow local transport authorities a choice of enhanced partnerships or franchising, or even their own bus companies, will enable local transport authorities to look at wider retailing. Of course, the ultimate aim is not to sell bus tickets at all but for people to use credit cards or bank cards directly as means of payment. We want the bus industry and bus services to move towards that, and I believe that this Bill will facilitate it.
Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, looks for a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme. The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system. The English national concessionary travel scheme costs about £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on a previous occasion in the Chamber, the Government are not considering changes to the scheme at the moment.
However, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. We see this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60+ Oyster card, and similar schemes already exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligation. That ability for local transport authorities will continue, and no part of this Bill will restrict it. A review into the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, and my department is currently considering the next steps.
Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making buses free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. In fact, youth concessions are currently offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of the 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities also have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. Since buses are local and the Government are committed to devolution, that is where we believe that such choices should be made in respect of free and reduced-rate travel for children.
Finally, I note the observations by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about demanding or wanting reports following my noble friend Lord Snape’s helpful intervention. This Bill has been carefully thought through. The first requirement when it becomes an Act of Parliament will be that it works for local authorities, communities and bus passengers. No doubt there will be reports in due course but, frankly, I am not looking for any of them to be carried out now or in the immediate future because, as my noble friend observed, our efforts ought to be concentrated on running the bus service better rather than writing reports about why it does not work.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister. I am reassured by him saying that the Government ought to continue to monitor the fare impact at a national level and will circulate the link to the review of the £2 cap. That is to be welcomed. I hope that he will drive forward the point about ticketing and modernisation because it is important for passengers.
However, I go back to the comments that I made earlier. The hefty report that I have here, the final-stage impact assessment, says:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
We have heard today about Cornwall’s hugely successful pilot but, if you read the trade press, it is clear that there are concerns about it continuing, and this goes back to the funding point that we discussed earlier. Probably for the first time in this Committee, I strongly disagree with the Minister about the £2 bus cap. We think that it is essential. The Minister described my amendment as unnecessary. We do not agree with that, we think that it is very necessary, but, at this stage, I will withdraw it. I am sure that we will come back to it at a future stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Training programmes on provisions in this Act and their impact on local transport authorities(1) Local transport authorities must establish and maintain training programmes to ensure staff and relevant stakeholders are informed of the provisions in this Act and their impact on the powers and responsibilities of local transport authorities.(2) Such training programmes shall—(a) provide a comprehensive overview of relevant legislative provisions in this Act,(b) focus on the practical application of these powers in policy development, planning, and service delivery, and(c) ensure compliance with legal obligations and promote effective decision-making.(3) Training must be made available to—(a) elected representatives overseeing transport functions,(b) officers responsible for the implementation of transport policies, and(c) any other individuals or organisations directly involved in delivering transport services.(4) Local transport authorities must review and update the training programmes regularly to reflect changes to this Act. (5) Authorities must publish a summary of the training programmes and participation rates annually to ensure transparency and accountability.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires local transport authorities to develop training programmes to ensure staff and stakeholders are informed about the provisions in this Act and their impact on the powers and responsibilities of local transport authorities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Grand Committee at this stage that I am a serving councillor.
The changes proposed in the Bill, as we discussed earlier in the amendment on governance, will require councillors serving on local transport authorities to make a range of decisions—the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was able to list some of them—that are currently not within their purview. That is positive. It will mean that democratically elected representatives will make the essential funding decisions that underpin bus services. It enables transparent decision-making and, in turn, that enables local people, as taxpayers, to question those decisions.
Creating an open, transparent and accountable process in the bus franchising system is essential. Local transport authorities are not used to operating in this extensive way. What LTAs do now is to try to support as best they can some socially vital services when bus companies say that they are not profitable. When the measures in this Bill are enacted, the role of the LTAs will change considerably. There will be major decisions to take on the shape of bus services and the balance of provision between running profitable routes and providing a public service option for smaller communities, as well as consideration about services at night, in early mornings and at weekends. Given that none of those serving on local transport authorities is likely to have had extensive experience of the new franchising arrangements, ensuring that a training programme is available for all involved is important.
Now I come to the more radical bit. Amendment 54 in my name seeks to go a step further and require mandatory training for councillors and staff, particularly councillors serving on local transport authorities. Councillors currently serving on planning and licensing committees are making decisions within a legal framework. Exercising that responsibility within that framework while raising the concerns of the people they serve is not straightforward. Many councils, mine included, have a mandatory training requirement for any councillor who serves on a planning or licensing committee. That has helped to raise the standard of discussion, debate and decision-making. Not every council has a similar training requirement for those committees, but doing so helps everyone to focus attention on the choices available, rather than simple opposition, which, when operating in a legal framework, is often unsuccessful.
There will be many difficult and challenging decisions to be made by local transport authorities as they seek to balance routes, rural routes, fare prices, congestion and time-tabling reliability. A lot of that is within a legal framework. Therefore, an extensive training programme would benefit those sitting on those committees and help those making those difficult choices to do so in a way that they can respond to effectively when they are challenged about why they have made a decision. There will be a lot of that, I think: “Why haven’t you got a rural route for me?” or “Why haven’t you cut the fares?”. If there was that training, it would be the background for them effectively to explain the decisions that have been made. Given that, I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the merits of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I tabled this as a probing amendment to continue the discussion on training to help to improve it and to try to mitigate the failures. I realise this is a rather generic amendment and lacking in much detail, but it is about getting the widest possible number of people to understand the impact on a disabled person of not being able to get on a bus.
I receive a number of emails every month from disabled people who are unable to access a service. It may be due to a broken ramp, although the bus should not leave the depot if the ramp is not working. It is also hard to get any traction on complaints, and a lot of disabled people feel that their issues are simply not understood. The issue with the space between wheelchairs and buggies is ongoing. I have experienced it myself, regardless of the High Court case of FirstGroup plc v Paulley. That does not seem to have moved things on as much as I had hoped. Then there is the issue of visually impaired people who have guide dogs, and understanding the space required for them is really important.
I recognise that a whole pile of training already happens, but I think it needs to be better. The impact of a disabled person not being able to get on a bus leads to isolation. In many cases, it is not possible for them to rely on taxis or other unsustainable modes of transport. You might be okay with taxis in a big city where they are accessible, but in lots of places around the country they are not. I probably receive emails every month from disabled people who have been refused access to taxis or charged more because of their impairment. Fewer disabled people are able to drive. Twenty-eight per cent of disabled adults live in a household without a car and only 61% hold a full driving licence, compared to 80% of non-disabled adults. This is why buses are so important.
I already mentioned how hard it can be to get redress. It is very hard to complain to the driver, especially if they just drive off, having refused access. It is also really hard to complain to the companies. They will often give an apology, but that does not fix the issue of somebody not being able to get on in the first place.
I am really interested in looking at what we can do to improve the quality of training. As an aside, I am chairing the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group for the Department for Transport, and training is the number one thing that we are looking at. We are not at the point of writing up our recommendations just yet, but we are exploring raising the bar on standards and ensuring it is equally delivered across the country.
I realise the vagueness of my amendment is probably not helpful, but I look forward to continuing the discussion about how we can make it more possible for disabled people to have the same experience as everybody else.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
This group of amendments is really important, because training is an essential part of this new move to different models for providing bus services across the country. I particularly wanted to highlight the important amendment from my noble friend Lady Pinnock, because local transport authorities will be taking on significant new powers. We must not underestimate that, and it will be vital that their staff, stakeholders and members who sit on the authorities have a comprehensive training package, so they understand the legislation, framework and landscape—and accessibility and what that truly means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly highlighted. I liken this to thinking about planning and licensing requirements and what has transformed local government over the last couple of decades in terms of training and the quality of decision-making in that space: we need to look at this in a similar way. I really hope the Minister will respond positively to these amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, as she knows. We will support her in her continuing campaign, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, to put the case on behalf of disabled people for proper consideration in relation to public transport services.
I was mildly tickled by the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. One of my deep concerns, which I have tried to express in as gentle a way as possible throughout this Committee, has been the adequacy and competence of local councillors to take on the role envisaged for them by this Bill. I had not imagined that a vice-chairman of the LGA should give such ringing endorsement to my concerns, to the point where she actually said that training should be mandated by statute for those who will take part in making those decisions. We are at one on this in our concern.
None the less, I am not entirely sure—here I suspect that I will sound a bit like the Minister, and I speak as a former local councillor—that the idea of a statutory training programme in this area would be appropriate. There is a false analogy with training for the exercise of planning and licensing functions, because those are almost invariably what are referred to as quasi-judicial functions that relate to individuals making applications relating to their property, business, premises or whatever. They need to be taken in an appropriate legal framework, rather than a political framework. It is appropriate that councillors are given training in that legal background where they are called on to make those decisions.
The sort of decisions that will be made here are not in that category, so I wonder whether this approach is necessary. In fact, even it were appropriate to have statutory training, I would not have training on the provisions of this Bill, which is what the amendment calls for but, rather, training of the sort that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Snape, could provide: training in how to run a bus company and make the hard, crunchy decisions that you will be confronted with about how to manage your resources in a way that maximises your revenue while allowing you to provide as many, but not necessarily all, of the socially important services that you would like to provide. Those are the hard, crunchy things that people will need to be trained in, rather than understanding the legal background provided by this Bill.
In a way, I am delighted to find myself holding hands with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this topic, but I am not sure that I can support her on the wording of this amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 54 and 55 together. I listened carefully, as I hope that I always do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who talked about her real experience of travelling by bus. Anything less than 100% accessibility is unacceptable, and I completely agree with her.
The Government are determined that power over local bus services is put back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grant for local transport authorities in 2025-26 by formula. Funding for bus services is also provided through the local government finance settlement. In fact, specifically, the 2025-26 funding included money for additional officer capability, for either additional officers or help equivalent to additional officers, to help each local transport authority in the choices that this Bill will give them.
The Government have also established the Bus Centre of Excellence, which I am sure we will continue to return to. Work is also under way to provide even more active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising. I take this opportunity to make noble Lords aware of the Government’s plans to pilot different franchising models particularly suited to more rural areas. This funding, along with potential local transport authority bus funding in future financial years, is available to support implementation of the Bill’s measures.
It is, of course, wholly reasonable to expect the people who deliver policies and support services that help disabled people to understand their legal rights, needs and expectations. This afternoon, we will come on to the primary training needs of bus drivers, who are the visible front line of the bus service. The Government are clearly committed to helping authorities deliver the service improvements that we all want to see, whether it is through tailored assistance, the additional funding to which I have referred or the Bus Centre of Excellence.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her important amendment; again, it rightly raises the issue of access for those with disabilities. I always think that if we get access for people with disabilities right, we get access for everybody right. The noble Baroness has placed an important amendment before us to make us think about that.
In my councillor role, at the moment, I am trying to help a resident who is in a wheelchair. There are three wheelchair users on her estate and only one can get on the bus at any one time, so she is unable to get the bus if they are there at the bus stop; she has to wait another hour to get a bus. Somebody said to her, “Well, get a taxi”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know, the answer is frequently no. There are no accessible taxis in my town, so that resident is stuck. We need those issues to be at the forefront of this debate, which is why the training is so important; otherwise, we will get it wrong. That would be both a terrible mistake and a loss of an opportunity.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I can understand why he stepped carefully around the issues of local government requirements and training for those on local transport authorities. I thank him for saying—sort of—that he will think about this. I hope that he will, because better decisions are made when folk understand the parameters within which they are operating. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert— “144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 58, I will also speak to my Amendments 59 and 60. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for their help along the way. I degrouped these from the original groupings, as they are more about safety than accessibility and inclusivity. I felt that they were important enough that they might get a bit lost in a larger group.
On 29 January, bus drivers marched from Victoria to Parliament to protest about driver conditions and present a petition, signed by over 29,000 people, calling for the acceptance of a bus drivers’ bill of rights, which is about giving bus drivers the basic rights of employment that they feel are being eroded. It was timed to commemorate the death of Kathleen Finnegan, who was killed by a London bus while crossing at Victoria Station. Driver welfare should be the cornerstone of any legislation. I have had meetings with representatives of bus driver groups who feel that there are some working practices going on that they are unhappy about.
My Amendment 58 would mandate that everyone has access to a confidential incident reporting system. CIRAS is one, but there are several bona fide reporting systems available. TfL has had that in place since February 2016; once again, we go back to the fact that TfL does a very good job, so let us roll that out. In my conversations with the Minister, for which I thank him, he felt that this could be brought in and would help a lot with driver safety concerns. If this were a requirement for every bus company, one would hope it meant that any driver safety issues could be thoroughly investigated. That would be great for transparency, passenger confidence, workers and politicians.
I turn to Amendment 59. On the first day in Committee, the Minister said that this Bill is about safety. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to that as well in talking about passenger surveys. However, except for a section about how to deal with crime on buses, there is very little in the Bill about safety.
My amendment would force bus companies to publish their safety data regularly. I talked about this at length at Second Reading, so I will not repeat myself but, in reply, the Minister said that all the data nationwide is already available on STATS19. I am afraid that I will ask the Committee to buckle in and follow me closely on this, because it will get quite granular. The Minister said in his letter that,
“It should also be noted that STATS19 data is a comprehensive and robust public record of personal injury incidents and includes a wide range of data that can be used to support future improvements to safety. A further set of safety data is collected by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority, who also collect data on incidents or collisions involving Public Service Vehicle … licence holders. By law, all PSV operators must report fatalities, serious injuries, allegations of a safety defect, serious damage as a result of the incident, a safety critical component failure or history of the same component failing, and a vehicle catching fire”.
I have to say that I did not find STATS19 to be user-friendly, on quite a brief look, and nor did it seem to regionalise data.
In response, the very excellent Tom Kearney, of LondonBusWatch—if there is anyone you need to granularly look at data, it is Tom Kearney—said this. I will quote him exactly:
“Compared to London’s published data, the DfT’s STATS19 Data is seriously deficient and undercounts the number of people killed and injured in Bus Safety Incidents. Even a casual review of STATS19 Data … reveals that is neither published as frequently or in as much useful granular detail as the Bus Safety Data TfL has published on its website every quarter since 2014 … Because STATS19 data combines incidents involving Bus and Coaches and does not include injury incidents involving Buses that have taken place on private roads or land (entrances/exits to and at bus stations) as far as Bus Casualty Data Reporting is concerned, STATS19 is both inaccurate and misleading. STATS19 also does not include injury incidents (Trips & Falls) onboard buses that might not have been caused by a collision, yet produce a lot of casualties (including fatalities) and are an important indicator of Bus Safety Performance”.
He continues by saying that an analysis of TfL’s published data reveals that, for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 December 2023,
“Collisions from London Buses at Bus Stations have injured 133”
and sent 87 people to hospital.
In addition, between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2024,
“6 people have been killed from Collisions from London Buses at Bus Stations. None of these fatal or injury incidents involving Buses are recorded in STATS19 Data; Out of the 120 Preventable Bus Safety Deaths that have occurred over the period Q1 2014-Q2 2024 that TfL’s published, 27 … don’t get reported in STATS19 because they occurred at Bus Stations … or resulted from onboard falls … or ‘other’ preventable safety incidents”.
TfL does not provide any details on those. Tom Kearney concludes:
“We have FOI requests that prove that the DVSA collects but does not publish data and the Traffic Commissioner neither collects nor publishes data”.
If the Committee has followed that, this issue is at best muddy.
Could we, as the users, have this data on a dashboard divided by LTA? STATS19 is neither easy to use nor, as far as I can see, divided across the regions. The Minister said that it might well be possible for franchises but was doubtful whether it would work where there was no franchise in place. These days, we are being told that data is gold. Surely companies should be mining this data anyway to analyse their performance—and if not, why not?
When I spoke to Go-Ahead, it was also concerned that much of the accident data is not the fault of buses but might be used as a headline number to dent passenger confidence. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to separate fault from no-fault accident data and learn from it. Again, we are talking of transparency and public confidence.
On my Amendment 60, from my conversations with bus drivers, again, they are really concerned about tiredness and things changing with shift patterns. They feel that they need more time. Again, since my conversation with the Minister, I realise that there are very different patterns in being an HGV driver and a bus driver. This is more of an amendment to push for an idea of the reporting. We really need to look at driver welfare and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raise some really important points about the safety of bus services and are important for our considerations. Bus safety performance data being shared in a clear, simple and transparent way is important if we are talking about driving up performance. The complexities that we have heard clearly outlined show why this is so.
I am particularly interested in Amendment 58. It is a good suggestion that all bus drivers should have access to the confidential incident reporting and analysis system known as CIRAS. Over my years of working on the London Assembly, we heard evidence time and again from drivers suffering from fatigue and stress and, in some places, of there being a culture which really did not support reporting of concerns and practices. Many drivers feared for their jobs and we heard similar things about the tram network as well.
CIRAS describes its role on its website:
“We listen to the health and safety concerns of people in transport. We protect their identity when we share their concerns with the right people to act. When we listen, we learn. We help our members share good practice and promote an even stronger culture of listening. And our members learn from valuable safety information they might have otherwise missed”.
This is important as we seek to improve bus services across the country. I really look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this group of amendments, particularly the point around CIRAS.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, with his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has opened up one of the most important and least discussed areas to do with bus operations in a way that presents many of us who have experience of responsibility, one way or another, for bus services—in my case, a non-executive responsibility for a number of years—with real challenges and difficulty. The question we must ask ourselves is whether bus operators have the right mentality about safety. I say that in the light of what has been achieved in the construction industry, for example, over the past 20 years, where a focus on zero accidents and injuries has transformed the way of working. Of course, zero is never quite achieved, but very close to zero is now achieved on construction sites. A deliberate programme and a deliberate change in mentality has brought that about. On the railways, there is a strong focus on that mentality, and I wonder whether it exists on the buses: are we, in fact, way out of date in our attitudes towards safety?
I want to mention that I have just become an officer of the newly reconstituted APPG on Women in Transport. The relevance is that many of these issues to do with safety are women’s issues. There is the obvious question of violence against women and girls on buses; the APPG will look at that, but there is the broader issue of safety in general. I do not have up-to-date statistics, but it used to be the case, admittedly some years ago, that a very large percentage of women over the age of 65 presenting at A&E were there because they had suffered an injury inside a bus—not from a bus collision but inside a bus, very often because of aggressive or inappropriate braking on modern buses, which have very sharp brakes. The safety regulators, of course, think, “Yes, we must have the sharpest and most modern brakes, just as for a motor car”, but in a motor car you are sitting down and strapped in, whereas on a bus you are frequently standing up, because buses are designed to carry standing passengers. Sharp braking results in people falling over. Very often, proportionally, it is elderly women who are falling over and being injured. Do we take proper account of that? Are we recording it? Are we thinking actively about what we should do about it? The situation has not improved in the 20 years or so that I have been making this point about elderly women inside buses.
Then there is the question, which is very pertinent to the Bill, of the way in which franchise contracts operate. My experience is somewhat out of date, but it is a London-based experience where franchising is used, and to some extent the London model is the basis for the Bill and is being rolled out elsewhere. The emphasis in the contracts is on keeping to the timetable, and that is very difficult in urban areas because of congestion and unpredictable events, including roadworks and so forth. Very often, drivers are under pressure—they have a clock and are in direct communication with their control—to make up time because gaps in the service have arisen, and they can do that only by going faster and braking more sharply. Quite apart from the potential effects on passengers inside the bus, which I have already mentioned, the risk of knocking into something, often with very serious effect if that something happens to be a human body walking in the street, is increased.
We are all here saying how wonderful it is—not all of us are saying it with the same level of enthusiasm, admittedly, but there are people in the Room saying how wonderful it is—that we are extending a franchise model, but the structure of the contract on which those franchises will be based needs to be looked at carefully in the light of safety considerations. We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing up this issue.
In relation to Amendment 60, I am not persuaded that we should have a new and separate statutory provision about working time in the Bill, when we already have quite extensive and elaborate working time legislation elsewhere. There is a lot to be said in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. I have a suspicion that they will reappear on Report; if they do, they will deserve very serious consideration indeed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 58. It seeks to require local authorities to ensure that bus operators provide their drivers with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System, which I will refer to as CIRAS.
The Government are always concerned, as they should be, about any safety incidents in the bus sector, or indeed any other public transport sector. That is why a number of official routes exist to allow anyone to provide confidential, anonymous reporting on safety and standards in the sector, backed up by enforcement. Anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the DVSA intelligence unit, which may use this information to investigate the situation, including by working with other government departments and agencies, as well as police forces.
Comprehensive standards bridge all aspects of bus operation, across the roadworthiness of vehicles, operation of services and driver standards. As I said, they are enforced by a number of organisations, principally the DVSA. The operators of the vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who consider non-compliance issues seriously and ensure that operators are effectively regulated. The judicial process of the traffic commissioners can and does result in depriving people of operators’ licences and depriving managers of their certificate to run bus operations.
CIRAS provides another route for employees to report concerns. Both Transport for London and Transport for Greater Manchester are members of CIRAS. Being able to report such concerns in a confidential manner is clearly important, and I would encourage employees of member organisations to consider using this service where appropriate. But CIRAS is a third-party service, and it would not be appropriate to include it within the scope of the Bill.
However, I did a bit of personal research on this, and I will say that if we are asking people to report bus safety issues to the DVSA intelligence unit, it would make a lot of sense for access to it to be freely available. When I looked at it, it was quite difficult to find, which is really unhelpful, so I commit that we will see what needs to be done to make sure that the route to report directly to the government agency responsible for safety on buses is as efficient and easy as possible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward Amendment 59. Road safety is a priority for the Government, of course, and we expect bus operators, as I hope I have just said, to adhere to the highest standards of safety. Buses are one of the safest modes of road transport in Great Britain, and my department remains committed to improving safety with appropriate vehicle construction standards and ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. As we have heard, franchising authorities report safety in detail, and I expect that a consequence of this Bill, as it enables other franchising authorities to be established, will be to enable them to report safety in a similar way to how London and Manchester already do. In effect, the franchising authority is taking responsibility for procuring and delivering a bus service.
In respect of operations that are not part of franchise bus services, we have heard this afternoon that this is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police. These reports are based on locations identified by geographical co-ordinates. This is a role that cannot be delegated to local transport authorities and ought to stay with the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency because it relates to PSV operator licensing requirements. However, I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in respect of accidents away from public roads, which I will go away and have a close look at. I am not familiar with that nuance, but it is clearly important. Trying to divide any sorts of accidents into fault and no fault is fraught with difficulty. In fact, it must be subjective, and therefore I am not sure that we would want to go down that road. I understand his point about recording accidents on public service vehicles wherever they occur, and I will go away and see what can be done about that.
Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to change long-established rules about daily driving time on regular bus services. There are two sorts of driving time rules: one for services that do not go beyond 50 kilometres and one for services that do. These daily limits are well and long established, and I think the gist of my conversation with the noble Lord was that he was looking for an ability for people to report scheduling requirements on bus drivers that make drivers feel that they are not safe. That is a matter that could well be drawn to the attention of the DVSA because it goes to the heart of the repute of the operator. I understand that there may well be drivers who feel that what they are being asked to do is potentially or actually unsafe. That goes back to the process that I have referred to and the ability to report it to either CIRAS, if the people responsible for the operation are members of it, or the DVSA if they are not. I note what he said about this amendment seeking to draw to our attention this important matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Moylan, talked about the timetable. No bus timetable in Britain should have any requirement for people to drive unsafely or exceed the speed limit. As a seasoned operator with some background in this, I say to them that very often, certainly in urban areas, what you are in fact looking for is not the timetable to be operated but the reliability of the bus service to be as good as it can be. My experience is that drivers should not feel under pressure to return to the timetable. In many cases, any substantial delay makes that impossible. The training given to bus drivers is about driving safely, having absolute regard to the safety of passengers and, in practice, maintaining the regularity of the service rather than the timetable.
If there are cases where drivers feel that they are being asked to drive unsafely, either by schedule or in practice, it is the reporting mechanism that we need to address because there are people trained in this stuff who can address those issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
With the Minister’s permission, I do not think that we are disagreeing and, therefore, I do not think that what he just said about timetables is quite the answer to my point. It may be my fault for expressing it in the way I did. I am sure that I talked about adhering to the timetable—I will look back at it—but he has cast it differently. He said that reliability—that is, the frequency between buses arriving—is what operators seek to maintain, but that is precisely what can lead to the sort of pressure on drivers where a controller says, “Hurry up because the gap between you and the bus ahead has got too large”. That is really what I was talking about and what I meant to express, although I used the language of timetabling.
The key question that the Minister will need to address is to what extent does the contract reward that behaviour? To what extent is reliability rewarded in the contract? In many cases, companies and people behave according to financial incentives. If your narrow margins as a bus operator or a franchise depend on maintaining certain levels of reliability and certain gaps between buses along the service, that is what you will be pushing your staff to do. It comes back to this question of what the contract says and what it rewards.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Before I got to the railway, I spent most of my adult life trying to encourage people who control bus services not to rely on the timetable but to adhere to a regular frequency. Of course, the truth is that in most urban areas, once you have lost time, the chances of ever regaining it are, frankly, pretty small, and they are even smaller with the increasing use of speed limits of 20 miles per hour. I take the noble Lord’s point but, in the end, this is about people either being required to drive unsafely or believing that they are required to do so. It is certainly possible, and I have seen it done to encourage people to attempt to make time up but, in my experience over the 50 years I have been driving buses—now and again, more recently—it is very difficult to do so.
Let us go back to the safety aspect of this. Where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is going rightly concerns finding a way for bus drivers to express that they are being either expected to drive unsafely or encouraged to do it. I take his point about that very clearly. As I said before, there are all these requirements on franchised authorities, which will report on safety because they are procuring the service. CIRAS is available, where people have chosen to join that third-party organisation, but, where they have not done so, it is about making the route to complaining clearer and more available. I very much hope that that answers the noble Lord’s points. I will leave it there.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I genuinely thought that this was this place at its best, and I realise that I have trespassed on a landscape of real expertise, but I think we got some cross-party consensus that we really need to push safety to the front of the Bill if it is not there already. I think the implication was there, but it is not in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about zero injuries in the construction industry which was very interesting, and we need to take that on board. Once again, we have got back to this: we need a really good reporting mechanism that people can use, and we need to publish what data is coming out as much as possible. I trust the Minister when he says that he will go away and think about this a lot. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Effingham
“Financial inclusion in public transport policies(1) Local transport authorities (LTAs) must ensure that all guidance, regulations, and policies implemented under this Act take into account the principle of financial inclusion.(2) In particular, LTAs must have due regard to—(a) the affordability of bus services for passengers on low incomes,(b) the availability of payment methods, including cash, that are accessible to all passengers, including those who do not have access to digital or contactless payment methods, and(c) measures to prevent financial barriers from excluding any groups of passengers from accessing essential bus services.(3) LTAs must publish a report every four years on steps taken to promote financial inclusion in bus services, including measures adopted to ensure access to cash payment options and affordable services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on Local Transport Authorities to prioritise financial inclusion in their public transport policies. It requires LTAs to ensure affordability and accessibility, including access to cash payment options, and mandates periodic reporting on progress.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment places a responsibility on local transport authorities to ensure that bus services remain accessible, not just through affordability but through the diversity of payment methods available. The reality is that different passengers have different preferences on how they want to pay. If we take rural areas, for example, we know that public transport services are often limited in these regions, and buses may be the only form of transport available. For many elderly residents in rural areas, cash is their preferred method of payment. If we remove cash payment options from bus services, we could unintentionally exclude a significant portion of the population, especially in rural and isolated areas where public transport is already sparse. This would not just inconvenience elderly passengers but severely restrict their ability to access essential services such as medical appointments, local shops and social support in the community. For these passengers, financial inclusion is about the ability to pay for their travel in a way that works for them. This amendment is not about one-size-fits-all solutions; it is about recognising that different passengers need different options. The elderly, the digitally excluded and those on lower incomes should be catered for in our transport policies. By ensuring that cash payments remain an option and that services remain affordable for all, we are creating a system that truly works for everyone, not just those who have the latest technology. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 71 and 72 in this group, with a slightly different angle on this interesting topic of payment, which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Effingham. Normally, I like to give the Government a good roasting, criticise them and explain why it is that I am so much further ahead in my ideas than they are. On this occasion, since I have tabled these amendments and made further inquiries, I am glad to say that this will be an easy ride for the Government because they are doing quite a lot on this already and things are going generally in the right direction.
My first amendment relates to the payment by concessionary fare holders, and the second relates to contactless payment. The two may seem to be roughly the same, but they are very distinct. Contactless payment using a bank card, debit card or credit card cannot be used by those who have concessionary rights to travel on the buses because, obviously, if you are going to use a card, that right has to be evidenced by some identifier.
Let me give an example: those who have a national bus pass will have a photo card of a distinctive style, with an English rose on it; I remember that that was an important feature when it was designed. It is a card of a distinctive style with your face on it, and you need it in order to demonstrate your right both to the bus driver, who probably takes no notice of what is on the card, and, certainly, to a revenue protection officer were they to board the bus and check. This cannot be done with a bank card. One therefore needs two types of technology involved, which I want to deal with separately.
In London, the system that was developed for concessionary fare holders was originally the system used for all contactless payment. This was the Oyster card technology, which is still used for concessionary card holders. That includes not just the elderly—the national bus pass people—but also those with freedom passes and young people who have free travel as well. That technology is used.
However, when the national bus pass was introduced—by Gordon Brown’s Government, as I recall—that technology was not used and the DfT preferred its own technology, which goes under the name of ITSO. TfL regarded it as rather clunky, but the fact is that TfL then had to fit all of its bus card readers with equipment that could read two separate technologies in order to read what is going on. This was a very foolish way of going about things. The purpose of Amendment 71 is to suggest that, as this matter develops, there should be a single system that is applicable to concessionary card holders.
Amendment 72 relates to contactless payment. Contactless payment is widely used in London and was promoted by TfL in collaboration with the banks. In fact, it is quite likely that the banks would never have taken the risk of introducing contactless payment into the country if it had not been for TfL turning up and saying, “We have 4 million transactions a day; if we were to get together, maybe we could make contactless work. It will de-risk it for the banks, to some extent, and will give us something even cheaper than the Oyster card system”. I mentioned it being cheaper.
We should bear in mind that the driver of this, from the bus operators’ perspective, is the cost of collection. The point I would make—I would never disagree with what my noble friend Lord Effingham says—is that inclusion is very important, but one has to remember that cash is expensive to collect. It is much less for electronic payments. Of course, you have to pay the banks, but TfL was quite lucky because it had a proposition for the banks, which meant, I think, that it could negotiate a very good deal with them in terms of what it paid per transaction. Certainly, it is much less than the cost of cash collection, or even of Oyster card operation. If you are an ordinary passenger on TfL services nowadays—not a concessionary fare holder—you must notice that all the advertising encourages you to use contactless and not to get an Oyster card at all. That is the direction in which everything is going.
Outside London, however, contactless payment is still rare. The reasons for this are partly that the different bus companies all have different back offices, and the system needs to work in such a way that it will work with all the different back offices. I am perhaps pre-empting what the Minister will say, but I am delighted to be able to say that I have had some very interesting and valuable conversations with Midlands Connect, which is the non-statutory transport body for the West Midlands and the east Midlands. On behalf of the Government, it is carrying out work to develop a system that would work with all the different back offices of the various different bus companies so that it is possible that, over time, we could have contactless payment on buses throughout the rest of the country. That would be very welcome. It would be useful if the Minister could say in his reply what the timetable for that is; how much resource the Government are putting into it; what level of priority they regard it as having; and how they will now work with the multiple LTAs up and down the country, which will be running the buses, to make sure that this is adopted in a coherent way.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, can I use this opportunity to point out that one of the great benefits of the contactless system is the ability to have integrated fares across a region? One of the things that I discovered in North Wales was the frustration of many people—again, particularly in rural areas—when they were taking several journeys to get to their destination. The ability to have this all taken care of within one transaction is of enormous benefit. Of course, as we know from London, it gives also you the opportunity to have daily caps on the prices of tickets and a great deal of improvement in the experience of people who are making complicated journeys, often across different modes but certainly across different bus journeys.
I see this as an important part of the future. If we are to have an integrated public transport system, we need an integrated fare structure as well. The contactless system is an important step on the way to achieving that important part of the pricing mechanism for the future. Despite the issue that we heard about earlier in terms of the £2 fare cap, my own view is that having an integrated system of the kind we enjoy in London is one of the most important things for the future usage of buses.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his remarks just now. The Government know how important affordable and reliable bus services are in enabling people to access education, work and vital services. We also know that buses are particularly important for people in the lowest-income households, who make nearly twice as many bus trips as the average, and for younger people, who are much more likely to use buses than other age groups.
The Government also understand the importance of making payment methods on buses accessible and available to all. This is why we have provided guidance to local transport authorities and bus operators on developing their bus service improvement plans, which encourages both parties to work in partnership on improving the provision of fares and ticketing to ensure that the needs of all local bus users are taken into account. To this end, local transport authorities are also encouraged to capture local information about cash usage and electronic payments to inform the development of their bus service improvement plans. The bus franchising powers in the Bill will also give local authorities greater control over fares and ticketing while, through their enhanced partnership arrangements, they can work closely with bus operators to ensure that fares and ticketing policies are inclusive for passengers.
I should just add that, from my own experience as the person who was at the time responsible for the removal of cash payments from buses in London, contrary to the belief of the then mayor that it was the poorest people in London who habitually paid cash, it was completely the reverse: the poorest people in London had already worked out the value of Oyster cards and of daily, weekly and monthly ticketing. In fact, it was the ABC1 males who insisted on trying to pay the enhanced cash fare. When we withdrew it, they immediately moved to Oyster cards themselves. We have already discussed better ticketing once this afternoon, of course.
Amendment 71 looks to have integrated ticketing across the bus network; I note that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, largely took Amendments 71 and 72 together. His sentiments are right: it is good for passengers, as well as for the bus network, its operators and franchising authorities, to have the most modern methods of payment with the lowest possible transaction costs. I completely agree with him.
What we do not want is to try to force people to do things that they cannot currently do while the work in progress that the noble Earl described is going on, to make payment methods as easy as possible. He asked me for a timetable, which I am not sure I can give him, but the multiplicity of back offices across the bus and railway networks in Britain needs to be untangled, and substantial work is going on within the department to enable multimodal ticketing, particularly in Manchester and the West Midlands, outside London. The consequence of that will be—I hope in time, and as quickly as possible—to allow the back office, in the way that he wants and as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, described, to provide seamless ticketing across bus networks. That work continues, and will take some time. He is, of course, right that in London the volume of transactions was so great that the credit card companies were willing to come to the table very easily. Outside London, it is a bit different, but the department is working very hard to do it.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly says that the Government are moving quite well in that direction—and he also observes, as I can confirm from observation just now, that the English national concessionary pass has the English rose on it, because mine has it on—I submit, on his own assurance that the Government are moving quite fast, that neither amendment is necessary.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Minister, who have all contributed to this short debate. It really is critical that we ensure financial inclusion for everyone. Based on what the Minister has just said, we will look at this issue further, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Effingham
“SEND pupils and home-to-school buses(1) In discharging their duties under this Act, local transport authorities must have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) when planning, commissioning, or providing services for home-to-school buses.(2) In particular, local transport authorities must take into account the following when providing home-to-school bus services for SEND pupils—(a) the specific travel requirements of SEND pupils, including but not limited to the provision of accessible vehicles, safe travel arrangements, and appropriate support during transit;(b) the need for flexibility in travel arrangements to accommodate the varied needs of SEND pupils, including those with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities;(c) the availability of transport options that support the inclusion of SEND pupils in mainstream education, ensuring they can access education on an equal basis with other pupils;(d) the potential for tailored travel arrangements, such as assistance with transfers, escort services, or adaptations to vehicles, to ensure the safety and comfort of SEND pupils during their journey to and from school.(3) Local transport authorities must also ensure that—(a) there is clear communication with parents, carers, and guardians of SEND pupils regarding bus transport arrangements and options available to meet their child’s specific needs;(b) where applicable, there is collaborative working between the local transport authority and educational institutions to ensure that home-to-school bus travel arrangements align with the pupil’s education plan or needs assessment.(4) The Secretary of State must, by guidance, specify further details on the best practices and requirements for local transport authorities to meet the needs of SEND pupils in the provision of home-to-school bus travel, with regard to accessibility, safety and effectiveness.(5) The Secretary of State must, every three years, publish a report on the adequacy of home-to-school bus travel provisions for SEND pupils, including any identified gaps in provision and the steps being taken to address them.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) must consider the needs of SEND pupils when arranging or overseeing home-to-school bus travel services.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I shall speak to all the amendments in this group standing in my name.
We must support our most vulnerable people, and we believe that His Majesty’s Government should prioritise SEND pupils when considering school bus services. Amendment 65 would place a vital obligation on local transport authorities to have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities when planning, commissioning or providing home-to-school bus services. We often speak in your Lordships’ House of our duty to ensure that every child has access to education, yet for many SEND pupils the journey to school is fraught with obstacles. Transport is not merely a logistical issue; it is a fundamental enabler of equality. Without suitable and reliable transport, education itself becomes inaccessible.
This amendment acknowledges a simple but often overlooked reality: that children with SEND require transport that is adapted to their needs, ensuring safety, accessibility and dignity. It is not enough to assume that standard transport provisions will be sufficient. Many of these pupils require accessible vehicles, safe and structured travel arrangements and, in some cases, specialist support during transit. Without these measures, their journey to school can be distressing, unsafe, or even impossible. Flexibility is key. The needs of SEND pupils vary widely. Some require physical adaptations, while others need assistance due to sensory sensitivities or cognitive challenges. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Local transport authorities must recognise the diversity of needs and build flexibility into their transport planning, ensuring that no child is left behind.
This amendment also speaks to the broader issue of inclusion. If we are to uphold the principle that SEND pupils have a right to mainstream education on an equal basis with their peers, we must ensure that they can physically access their schools. The provision of suitable transport is not an additional benefit—it is a necessity. This is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about embedding fairness and inclusion in our transport system. It is about ensuring that SEND pupils are a priority in our transport planning.
With Amendment 66, we must ensure that pupils attending schools outside their local transport authority’s boundary are not disadvantaged. This amendment requires LTAs to work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities to co-ordinate travel arrangements that are reasonable and accessible. Given the potential impact of franchising in certain areas, there is concern that changes to bus routes may inadvertently disrupt essential school transport services. This amendment ensures that LTAs take this issue into account when making transport decisions.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State provides guidance on co-ordinating cross-authority travel and evaluates its effectiveness at regular intervals. This will help to address any barriers preventing pupils, particularly those with SEND, accessing their education due to inadequate transport links.
Amendment 67 also comes in the context of a wider concern, which is His Majesty’s Government’s VAT on private school fees. The implementation of VAT on private school fees has caused financial strain on many families, but particularly those with SEND children. The Telegraph has reported that inconsistencies between Treasury and HMRC guidelines have resulted in some private schools having to add VAT to fees for essentials such as school lunches. Furthermore, the decision to push through the VAT levy during the academic year, without providing schools adequate time to adjust, has placed additional burdens on families. Not all SEND pupils have education, health and care plans. This means that many parents have been forced to pay transport fees out of pocket to ensure that their children’s needs are met.
We are simply asking for a review by the Secretary of State and consideration of an exemption on bus services for SEND pupils. As I said earlier, this is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about ensuring that SEND pupils and those who travel across authority boundaries are a priority. The Government have said they want to ensure that all children have the best chance in life to succeed—and that is, of course, absolutely correct. Fairness should extend to all pupils, particularly those with SEND, regardless of where they receive their education.
On Amendment 68, please let me highlight the critical issue raised in this amendment, which seeks to review the impact of national insurance contribution increases on transport services for those children with special educational needs and disabilities. The proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions will create a serious financial strain on private bus operators that provide SEND transport services. Many of those providers already work within narrow financial margins, and the increase in employment costs will likely make it financially unsustainable for some of them to continue offering their essential services.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport has estimated that this will cost the bus industry a total of £100 million. For a bus driver earning £30,000 per annum, the additional cost will be approximately £800 per year. This is a significant burden for small and medium-sized private operators, many of which already struggle to remain profitable in an industry with tight margins. If these private providers can no longer afford to maintain SEND bus services, local councils will be forced to step in, which means they will need to retender thousands of contracts—an administrative process that could take months. Delays in retendering would cause disruption to transport services, leaving vulnerable children without the critical support that they need to attend school. Such delays could also affect the quality of services, as new providers may not be able to offer the same level of expertise or flexibility that the private operators previously provided.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, has raised some serious concerns and this group of amendments picks up a point raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. She described the ongoing situation with school bus services and pupils with special educational needs in North Yorkshire, and the terrible impact it is having on families and children. It is vital that bus services support children attending school and college, whether within their local authority area or further away, which is often the case with specialist education provision. This is an area of much concern. I hope the Minister is able to provide some assurance in response to this group of amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I heartily endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Effingham and the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. To be crystal clear, the fundamental issue is not the increase in national insurance rates as such, but the reduction in the threshold at which national insurance becomes payable.
Many of the people who drive special educational needs buses are part-time semi-volunteers. They may be working a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon, and their overall salary, as things currently stand, brings them in below the level at which national insurance contributions are payable. That is approximately £10,000 a year; I am using a very rough figure there, as I do not have the actual figures at hand. The Government’s proposal is a reduction to £5,000 a year of the point at which national insurance contributions become payable—again, an approximate figure. It is that reduction which brings these people within scope of national insurance contributions, which is potentially fatal to the operation of many of these services. They will simply not continue. The best that can be hoped for would be a more expensive service, after a lengthy period of retendering and disruption, in which maybe the same or maybe different operators are providing a more expensive service to the local education authority in many cases.
Separately, there is also the question of private schools and putting VAT on the bus services they provide, which would be bizarre because no other form of transport is subject to VAT, as far as I am aware. It is one of the consequences of the Government’s vindictive action against private schools. But the SEND issue is not simply about private schools; it is about the whole range of schools, and it is crucial that it is resolved soon.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Before I address the amendments in this group in turn, I wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Harris of Richmond—who raised her concerns at Second Reading—for raising the importance of home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs. Although this is not directly within my department, my officials continue to work with the Department for Education to understand the issues and how they are best addressed. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of suitable transport.
Your Lordships may already be aware that the Government are clear that the system for educating children with special educational needs and disability—SEND—requires reform. The Department for Education will work with families, schools, local authorities and other partners to deliver improvements so that children and young people can access the support that they deserve. It acknowledges that challenges in the SEND system extend to the arrangements for home-to-school travel and has committed to ensuring that more children can receive the support they need in a local mainstream school. This will mean fewer children needing to rely on long and complex journeys to access education.
Turning to Amendment 65, home-to-school transport is the responsibility of local authorities with education functions, not local transport authorities. For example, Transport for Greater Manchester is the local transport authority for the Greater Manchester region but responsibility for home-to-school travel rests with the 10 local councils within the region. The Education Act 1996 places a statutory duty on local authorities to arrange free home-to-school travel for eligible children. A child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, attend their nearest suitable school and would not be able to walk there because of the distance, their special educational needs, a disability, a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe.
It is for local authorities to decide what travel arrangements they make for eligible children. For example, they might provide them with a pass for free travel on public transport or arrange a dedicated bus, minibus or taxi. However, to meet their duty, the travel that they arrange must be suitable for the needs of the child concerned. The Department for Education provides comprehensive statutory guidance to help local authorities meet this duty.
The Government already expect local transport authorities to take account of the needs of all people travelling, including children travelling to school. Effective collaboration between local transport authorities and local authorities delivering home-to-school transport may bring benefits, but it would not be appropriate to place a duty relating to home-to-school transport on local transport authorities when statutory responsibility for that service rests elsewhere. For these reasons, Amendment 65 is unnecessary.
Amendment 66 relates to children travelling outside their local authority boundary to access a suitable school place. The statutory duty that requires local authorities with education functions to arrange free travel for all eligible children applies regardless of whether a child’s school is outside the council’s boundary. Where a child with special educational needs has an education, health and care plan, the school named in that plan will almost always be considered to be their nearest suitable school for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for free travel. It is already commonplace for local authorities to arrange free travel. For this reason, this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 67 concerns the application of VAT to transport for pupils with special educational needs who attend private schools. These services may already be exempt from VAT; for example, passenger transport in a vehicle with 10 or more seats does not pay any VAT, and operating a vehicle that has been constructed or modified to cater for the special needs of people with disabilities may also not pay any VAT. The Government’s ambition is a state-funded school place for every child who wants one, whether they have special educational needs or not. The Department for Education’s reforms, which I have already mentioned, will deliver an inclusive mainstream system that meets the needs of as many children and young people as possible in their local community.
I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to the consultation on the national insurance contributions Bill, which says at paragraph 2.13:
“The policy intention is to only capture education services and vocational training supplied by a private school, or a ‘closely connected person’, and closely related boarding services. The government recognises that other goods and services ‘closely related’ to education, such as school meals, transport, and books and stationery, are integral to children accessing education. As a result, other ‘closely related’ goods and services other than boarding (i.e. goods and services that are provided by a private school for the direct use of their pupils and that are necessary for delivering the education to their pupils) will remain exempt from VAT”.
I therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment 68 concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on bus services for children with special educational needs. The Government recognise that the increase to employer national insurance contribution will have a varying impact across sectors but had to make difficult decisions to help restore economic stability.
As I have remarked already, local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and deliver this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
My noble friend Lord Livermore, at Second Reading of the NIC Bill on 6 January, said in response to a question about NICs and special educational needs transport:
“The right reverend Prelate also asked about SEN transport. In the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which covers special educational needs home-to-school transport schemes”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.]
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that that is true for special educational transport needs provided directly by local education authorities using their own employees but not for contracted services, which are very widely used?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was referring to support to local authorities for home-to-school transport schemes. I will take that away and come back to him with the clarification that he seeks in this respect. I can say that the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment as the amendment suggests. I do not think that it is required.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lord Moylan, and the Minister for their contributions in this debate. We have heard so much in the Chamber about how SEND pupils may be adversely affected by various new government policies, so we feel that a review, or an impact assessment as per these assessments, is a fair and reasonable request. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Moylan
“Transfer of functions of Traffic Commissioners to the Department for Transport(1) The functions of the Traffic Commissioners established under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, in so far as they relate to buses, are transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport.(2) The Secretary of State may establish a dedicated division within the Department for Transport to carry out functions previously exercised by the Traffic Commissioners and transferred by subsection (1). (3) All references to the Traffic Commissioners in any relevant legislation, regulations, or guidance, in so far as they relate to buses, are to be construed as references to the Secretary of State or the dedicated division established under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the commencement of this provision, publish a report outlining the structure, roles, and responsibilities of any division established under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment abolishes the role of Traffic Commissioners in so far as they relate to buses and transfers their functions to the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State will be responsible for implementing these functions through a dedicated division, ensuring streamlined and consistent governance.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I suppose you could say that this is a modestly frivolous proposal because I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister will agree to it, but I thought it would give us an opportunity to take a little excursion into the history and byways of English bus history and to consider how it is that institutions, once established, can take root in a fashion that means they are almost impossible to abolish. Indeed, they can even engender a degree of affection that means they become almost inbred in the national consciousness, not that there are many people outside the transport industry who are conscious of the traffic commissioners. It is worth bearing in mind that they arose in the bad old days of corporate capitalism and monopoly capitalism, which prevailed particularly in the 1920s when what Americans called trusts were thought of as the rational way of delivering goods and services in the private sector. We adopted that idea, creating monopolies wherever we possibly could in the private sector, unregulated monopolies in many cases, and encouraging them.
So it came to be that the thought that capitalism unbridled would produce reckless and wasteful competition arose in the bus industry nationally—or among those observing the bus industry—that it needed to be properly organised on a rational basis and that the way to do this would be to appoint an authority that would be able to decide who could run a bus, where they could run the bus and what fares they could charge. As this was a gentle form of English socialism, it was not a national authority but rather 12—I think it was 12— regional authorities in the shape of a traffic commissioner, whose job it was to do all this work and decide who could run a bus and where.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I have seen the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is not addressing it; he is giving us a history lesson. We had this in the football debate where we had 25 minutes of someone describing the difference between a badge and a crest. It was an excellent presentation on the fleur-de-lis and the history of football crests, but it served no purpose whatever towards the football Bill and, at the end, the amendment was withdrawn. I think that sometimes Members need to be mindful of the time and effort that other Members put into sitting in these Committees and should perhaps use a bit less frivolous description just to prolong the meeting. It is absolutely contrary to the spirit of how these Committees are supposed to work. To probe the Government is fair, but to go into a history lesson on the role of traffic commissioners is unacceptable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Well, that is a very serious rebuke on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I nearly wilted and decided to curtail my speech as a result of that intervention, but I have found the strength to continue. I remind the noble Lord that there is no question of time being spun out here. We are in day three of a four-day Committee, and we are very likely to finish the Committee today. We are going at rapid speed, and any suggestion that any member of this Committee has been using the time to spin out the debate is preposterous and is denied by the facts, so I will return to what I was saying.
This was the purpose of the traffic commissioners; they were set up for that purpose. So we come to 1985. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, considers 1985 an historical date or one that is part of the modern and contemporary world; for me, it is fairly contemporary, but I would not want to comment on the noble Lord’s age or experience of these matters. Of course, in 1985, all those functions in relation to buses were taken away from the traffic commissioners. By then—this is important—they had acquired functions in relation to the freight industry, as well as certain safety functions on top of that, so there was a reason for continuing the traffic commissioners then.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, will have noted, in his careful scrutiny of my amendment, as will have other noble Lords, that it refers only to the bus functions of the traffic commissioners. There is nothing here that would abolish them entirely. That is a pity, in my view, but I was advised by the Public Bill Office that an attempt to abolish them entirely would be outside the scope of the Bill.
The commissioners survived 1985, although there was really very little need for them. The Government are returning to a sort of 1920s view of how buses should be run in the Bill before us, but not giving the same functions back to the traffic commissioners. The decisions about where the routes should run, who should have a special licence and what the fares should be will in effect fall to the local transport authority, not the traffic commissioners, but they are to continue. Their functions include enforcement on safety matters, yet their budget for that is derisory and, effectively, there is very little enforcement. A lot of that work is done, in relation to freight at least, by the DVSA and not by the traffic commissioners.
Generally, it would be a good time to have a bit of a clear out of the bureaucracy that encrusts our modern society. I would like to see the traffic commissioners go entirely and what functions they have transferred to the Department for Transport, but the proposal today, for scope reasons, as I said, is slightly more modest. I do not expect the Minister to accept it, but it is a proposal that those of us here in Committee with a slightly more revolutionary spirit—I am sorry that does not include the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, or maybe it does; we shall hear when he comes to speak—should embrace to see some real change, at last, at the seat of government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might briefly address one of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I was present in the Chamber, as I frequently am, during the Football Governance Bill. I appreciate that he might not be that interested in the difference between the crests and the arms, but the College of Arms is run by my noble kinsman His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, and I can tell him that the argument put forward as between crest and arms is relevant and has implications. It is important to realise that. He may well want to look into it; I am happy to explain to him why it is important, if he is interested.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the imminence of the recess suggests to me that I should not challenge the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his knowledge of the history of the traffic commissioners, but I will do that over a drink some time. I am less interested in the development of the Road Traffic Act 1930, or indeed the Transport Act 1985, than I am in the future of the bus service in the 2020s.
Traffic commissioners play an important and strategic role in the transport sector and, these days—principally but not wholly—in road use safety. I certainly refute completely any suggestion that there is an absence of enforcement; the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency does that. Traffic commissioners are an admirably economic and cost-effective way of dispensing justice to bus operators and bus drivers—those who are licensed to provide these important and, indeed, safe services—in a way that is widely celebrated in the industry and regarded as far more effective than any other solution. Indeed, the independent review of the traffic commissioner function undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, published in May 2023, found that
“the Traffic Commissioner function generally operates effectively”
and noted a strong level of support from the industry for functions continuing to sit with the traffic commissioner. The truth is that for a regulatory arrangement to be so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates is something to be celebrated, rather than abolished.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister not rather concerned that the regulator is so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the reasons why is because it is not in the industry’s interest to have poor-quality operations competing with it; that is true in respect of both the goods sector and the passenger transport sector. When the traffic commissioners take enforcement action, including depriving drivers or operators of their licences or curtailing them, it is widely celebrated by those operators who do take account of the law and operate safely. That is what is important.
On our earlier discussion about the safety of bus operations and bus drivers, finding a mechanism that is effective for disciplining those drivers and operators who transgress the law—sometimes with no intention of complying with it—is very effective. I encourage noble Lords to consider the alternative mechanism of taking taxi drivers in front of magistrates’ courts, which are often found by everybody looking at the actions of the magistrates to be excessively lenient and persuaded by drivers’ explanations of their behaviour that would never pass muster with the traffic commissioner. It is a very important judicial function, and the commissioners need to be supported.
Returning to the Bill, your Lordships will have noticed that some limited changes are proposed to the functions of the commissioners. These include changes to services operating under service permits with enfranchised areas and powers to act against bus operators who breach the mandatory training requirement. The Bill is about empowering local leaders to take decisions on how best to run bus services in their areas. The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions of England—and, for that matter, Scotland and Wales—is complementary to this Bill’s objectives. They are well placed to use local knowledge to take the decisions they do in the execution of their powers, and I certainly do not believe that the noble Lord has made any case for change in the way that this amendment suggests.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Clause 21 of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations instead of coming into force two months after Royal Assent. This is to allow sufficient time for guidance under new section 144D of the Transport Act 2000 (inserted by Clause 21 of the Bill) to be prepared.
The Earl of Effingham
(4A) Sections 1 to 15 may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament the report required by section (Impact assessment on rural areas).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment combined with another ensures that the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of sections 1 to 15 on rural areas before they come into force.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that we have already discussed various aspects of this amendment in the debates, so I will be brief. Before we move forward with significant changes to our bus services, we think it very important to pause and ask: what will this mean for rural communities? That is precisely why this amendment is so important. It would ensure that before Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill take effect, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the impact on rural areas.
This report is not about delaying progress; it is about ensuring informed progress. We need to understand whether these reforms will improve rural connectivity or unintentionally make services even harder to access. Will funding be allocated fairly? Will small operators that serve rural routes still be viable? Will local authorities have the powers and resources needed to support these services? These are critical questions that must be answered before the Bill comes into force. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his remarks on Amendment 82. I also thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all other noble Lords for the issues they have raised in Committee. I have found the exchanges useful in discussing the purpose of the Bill and considering issues raised across your Lordships’ Committee. The Bill reflects how important it is to improve local buses for passengers across the country, including those who are woefully underserved in rural areas. Throughout this process, the needs of people living and working in and visiting rural areas have been integral to policy development.
Government officials have worked hard to publish a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment that has been rated green by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. The assessment covers every one of the Bill’s measures in detail, including in the context of rural areas, so I am afraid I would struggle to justify why a further duplicate assessment is required. Although the noble Earl says this is not about delay, the amendment would have the potential to delay progress on the Bill and therefore to delay its introduction in areas that need its provisions.
It is important to remember that the freedoms allowed by the Bill to franchise and set up a local authority bus company are entirely optional. These powers simply give local transport authorities more choices in how their bus networks are operated. If a rural authority decides to establish a local authority bus company, it will have the flexibility to scale the company to match the needs of its local passengers, its ambitions for the network and the available funding. Additionally, it is important to highlight that the Government have allocated funding to build LTA capacity and capability on buses, including, but not limited to, the Bus Centre of Excellence. They also plan to pilot different franchising models that may be particularly suited to rural areas.
I conclude my remarks there, and once again thank all noble Lords for the excellent debates across the days we have shared in Grand Committee. I look forward to further debate on Report.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Berkeley, whose amendments in the first group were relevant to my amendment. I do not think we need to discuss further and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
National Insurance Contributions: Hospitality Sector
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Altrincham
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the hospitality sector of the cost of the increase in employer National Insurance contributions, and the savings from the increase in employment allowance for the smallest businesses.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Altrincham and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it was this Government’s duty, in the Budget last year, to fix the foundations of the economy and to repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. In doing so, and in recognition of the importance of small businesses, including hospitality businesses, to the economy, we protected the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that, next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and 1 million businesses will pay the same or less than they did previously.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I am afraid that I have to challenge the validity of his data on what he refers to as the black hole. Please let me quote Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that Rachel Reeves
“may be overegging the £22bn black hole”.
Most crucially, please let me quote Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR itself, who said:
“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that”
£22 billion figure. I have a simple question for the Minister: when the OBR’s chair says that nothing in its review was a legitimisation of the number that has now been repeated 59 times from His Majesty’s Government’s Benches, is the chair of the OBR wrong?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am rather astonished that the noble Earl has gone on this line of inquiry, but I am absolutely delighted that he has, because, as he knows, it is one of my favourite topics; I hope that we can make it 60 times from this Dispatch Box that I talk about the £22 billion of unfunded spending that we inherited from the previous Government. The noble Earl will know that the OBR’s review was on the meeting that it had with the Treasury on 8 February 2024, when, under the legislation passed by the previous Government, the then Government were obliged to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve. The OBR’s review has established that, at that point, the then Government concealed £9.5 billion from the OBR. Before we dismiss £9.5 billion, that is equal to the entire capital education budget and the entire capital health budget. That is not a drop in the ocean; that is £9.5 billion. The OBR then made 10 recommendations to stop this from ever happening again, and we have accepted all of those in full. Of course, that was just in February; the previous Government then had until July. What makes anyone think that, because the previous Government thought they got away with it in February, they could stop until July? Treasury figures show that, come the spring Budget—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, it was quite a long question. The noble Earl asked me to break it down specifically, so I am answering him. By the spring Budget, that number had reached £16.3 billion, and by July, it had reached £22 billion.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the changes to the employers’ NICs threshold now mean that someone working part-time for just eight hours will be subject to employers’ NICs—a huge additional cost for the whole hospitality sector, including the pubs, which the Prime Minister says he champions. Will the Government not only reverse this hike but follow the Lib Dem proposal to halve employers’ NICs on part-time workers, saving the hospitality sector and the jobs of so many people who, because of responsibilities, disabilities or other limitations, absolutely rely on part-time work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is no. Of course, we recognise that the retail and hospitality sector has struggled in recent years. At the Budget, we introduced a number of policies, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier. Together with the small business rates relief, this will exempt over a third of properties from business rates. On national insurance, as I have said before, there are consequences to responsibility, but there would have been greater consequences to irresponsibility, and it is not clear to me how the noble Baroness would fund her policies.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the increase in the employment allowance for small businesses is most welcome, but can I press the Minister on the exemption for public sector employers from this increase in NICs and urge him to consider extending that exemption to social care and charity companies for example, particularly as they have such a preponderance of low-paid women in their workforce?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The distinction that we are following follows the long-established distinction in these matters, and it is exactly the same as the previous Government had in their health and social care levy. That is a long-standing principle and, as the noble Baroness will know, we have extended a significant amount of compensation to public sector employers.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in the noble Earl’s question, the IFS was prayed in aid, but is it not a fact that, throughout the general election, the IFS—particularly Paul Johnson its leader—was saying all the time that there was a black hole that would have to be filled?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. We inherited a situation where there was a complete fiscal fiction. We have had a tough Budget, but we have wiped the slate clean and restored transparency and honesty to the public finances. We inherited a situation where there were no spending plans in place; we have a spending review and, for the first time, we have put certainty into public spending. We inherited a situation where capital spending was falling, and we have ensured that capital spending is rising. We are bit by bit restoring and rebuilding the foundations of this economy.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge that SMEs employing part-time workers, particularly in hospitality and retail, are facing 20% to 50% increases in their national insurance contribution bills on April 5, and that this hardly fits with a world of flexible and part-time work, and nor will it help the Government’s mission to get Britain working?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We know it is particularly important to protect the smallest companies, and that is exactly why we doubled the employment allowance, meaning that 865,000 employers will now not pay any national insurance at all and more than 1 million businesses will pay the same or less than they did previously.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, we are a highly regulated and highly taxed country; that has a big impact on SMEs. On regulation, to appoint a lawyer can take as much as two months, to open a bank account takes three months and even to register for VAT can take weeks. This NIC increase is very much an employment tax: on every person employed, you have to pay 15% NIC. Could the Minister please tell us what they can do to support SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy, in terms of regulations?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that small businesses are the backbone of the economy. Many of the regulations he speaks about were introduced by his Government over the past 14 years. We have committed not to raise corporation tax for the lifetime of this Parliament, giving certainty to business and keeping the rate at the lowest in the G7. We will introduce legislation to tackle late payments, which is a key issue that disproportionately affects small businesses. The upcoming small business strategy will set out a comprehensive plan to ensure that small businesses have access to the right skills, finance and markets to reach their full potential.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the Opposition are trying to suggest that the national insurance increases are the result of the Labour Government? Is it not a fact that, if they had not left that deficit, we would not have had to introduce the measures that we have had to introduce recently?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. As I have said all along, there are consequences to responsibility, and we have always acknowledged that. But the consequences of irresponsibility—for the economy and working people—would have been far, far greater. We saw exactly that with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and saw typical mortgage payments increased by £300 a month.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, £9 billion was also the cost of giving public sector workers a huge pay rise, without specific related productivity requirements. Recent changes have shown that probably the only people in the country who do not believe that the Chancellor’s Budget has unnecessarily worsened the position of hospitality, charities, hospices and many other small businesses are the Chancellor herself and the noble Lord opposite. Will the noble Lord think again, because of the effect on growth and on these particular sectors?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I notice the noble Baroness did not mention today’s growth figures, which were obviously higher than expected, but, as we have said all along, they are simply not good enough. We are doing everything we can to bring stability back to the economy. The noble Baroness has opposed every single measure that we have taken to restore stability to the economy; she has opposed every single measure that we are putting in place to rebuild the supply side of this economy; she has opposed every single measure we put in place to rebuild the public finances. It is very interesting that she says she opposes the pay rises for public sector workers, and I am sure every public sector worker will be listening closely to what she says.
E-scooters
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of enforcement measures against the illegal use and operation of e-scooters.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission and plan for change. The Government have announced proposals to give the police greater powers to clamp down on e-scooters and other vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour, with officers no longer being required to issue a warning before seizing vehicles. These powers will be included in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I want to address the current illegal use of privately owned e-scooters in public places. The current rules are simply not working. The Minister addressed the fact that crime is being perpetrated by owners of illegally operated e-scooters. Will he look favourably on the provision in my Private Member’s Bill, where I ask the Government to consider legalising the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance? Currently, these cannot be insured as they are illegal in public places. The cost to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau—and therefore all of us who pay for our motor insurance—is going up. Some 35% of the claims paid out by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau are against pedestrians between the ages of seven and 80. The numbers of deaths and casualties are increasing. What are the Government doing to address this increasing problem of illegally operated e-scooters?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My colleagues in the Department for Transport have already made it illegal to use e-scooters in public places. There are 17 current pilots to examine how e-scooters can be used, and they are being evaluated currently. The police and others can issue fixed penalty notices. The noble Baroness’s Bill has been discussed previously, and there are several ideas in there which are worthy of consideration. However, the Government’s first priority in the crime and policing Bill is to make sure that where those bikes are now being used illegally, they can be seized without any warning by the police. If this House and the House of Commons pass that legislation before the end of this year, those bikes will be seized by police.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this situation is not sustainable. Research carried out by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety shows that e-scooter riders are more likely to fall forward in the event of a collision and therefore are more likely to suffer a head injury and serious consequences. Will the Minister push for new regulations to ensure the safety of private e-scooters separate from the public trials?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness focuses on very important issues, and the safety of the public is a prime concern. It is currently illegal to use e-scooters in the way in which she has described, and the police have powers to issue fixed penalty notices on a range of measures—that is an important issue. The trial that is being undertaken is to see whether the safety measures that are required are appropriate, and that will be reviewed in due course by the Department for Transport. But in the meantime, we have recognised that there needs to be action on those illegal scooters, which is why we are exercising powers to allow seizure as a matter of first recourse, not as a second or third recourse. If this House approves them, those powers will be operational as soon as the crime and policing Bill receives Royal Assent in due course.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, this is a tangential issue which I hope the Government can get ahead of. On Monday I was walking back towards the Tube and came across two people with two small fridges about this big on six wheels—they were robots. I said, “What are these things?”, and one of them said, “We are working for the Co-op supermarket and we’re trialling on-pavement delivery services around the country”. They mentioned the Co-op and a number of towns. I said, “Have they got permission to be on the pavement?” “Yes”, he said. I asked, “What happens when I’m on the pavement?” He answered, “They’re very clever—they will miss you”. However, supermarkets are very greedy and are always looking for an edge. So, if there is no legislation, we do not want six-wheeled, horizontal fridges whizzing down our pavements in the near future. Please can the Government find out and do something about it? It will be a problem.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for educating me in the use of mobile fridges; I saw on my local regional television service that the Co-op is trialling them in the north-west of England. I am not aware how widespread that is, and to be honest from the Dispatch Box, I am not aware of what current legislation will cover that issue. But, as ever, I will take it away, examine it and make sure that I respond to the noble Baroness, and I will certainly look with interest at the impact of those mobile vehicles on pavements. My view is—this is a long-standing view—that pavements are for people, not for cars, bikes or e-scooters. But I will examine for the noble Baroness how that aspiration goes into legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, further to the point on criminality made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, quite apart from the nuisance value and the danger that is attached to the use of these e-scooters, there is strong evidence to show that they are being used in connection with crime and anti-social behaviour, such as the increasing level of mobile phone thefts. Can the Minister perhaps outline what action is being taken to tackle this problem in conjunction with the Home Office?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord may be aware—if he is not, I will certainly send him information on it—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a meeting last week with police chiefs and the Metropolitan Police to look at ongoing concern about mobile phone theft, and as a result of that discussion, several areas of work are being commissioned to look at how we can reduce it. It is completely unacceptable for any criminals to use bikes, e-scooters or other potential means of movement to steal mobile phones. It is a growing crime that we want to crack down on, and it is distressing to people. It is not about the loss of the phone; if the phone is unlocked, it can lead to wider fraud issues, such as bank fraud and the use of Apple Pay, et cetera. The noble Lord raises a really important issue, and I will update the House when we have had further discussions with the police about what actions can be taken.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
The theme of this Question seems to be public safety. I noticed that last week two fires were reported in London due to lithium battery failures, one in an e-scooter and one in an e-bike. What consideration are His Majesty’s Government giving to mandatory safety standards for PLEV batteries, and how can we enhance awareness of safe charging practices to protect lives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I confess that he is straying into areas that are beyond my direct responsibility because they are Department for Transport issues. But it is extremely important to make sure that we have sufficient regulation and assessment of the potential dangers of electric batteries causing fires in electric vehicles and cars. If the right reverend Prelate will allow me, I will refer his comments to my noble friend Lord Hendy, the Transport Minister, and I will ensure that he gets a reply on the specifics of that issue downstream.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, as a regular user of hired electric scooters, I welcome them. They are very convenient and if you obey the law, it is fine. But will the Minister encourage his colleagues in the Department for Transport to introduce legislation so that people can own e-bikes and e-scooters with impunity rather than having to hire them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I have helped the House by saying that currently the use of those scooters in public places is illegal but they are allowed to be used on private land. There is the ability to have selected trials of hired e-scooters, in which my noble friend is participating, obviously. The Government intend to review how that trial has gone, to learn the lessons about safety, the use of those scooters, the costs and indeed the points that the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon, have mentioned. That review will take place over the next 12 months, and the issues that the noble Lord has raised will be forward policy which will lie with my noble friend Lord Hendy.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, despite being banned in public places in Northern Ireland, e-scooters remain a common and worrying sight on the Province’s streets and roads. Last month, on the Floor of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave me a welcome commitment to launch a UK-wide consultation with all enforcement authorities to ensure that the laws on e-scooters are upheld. Is the Minister able to provide an update on what progress has been made in delivering on this commitment, and can he assure me that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be fully involved?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The regulations that we are looking at in the crime and policing Bill will be England and Wales provisions, and they are in relation to the seizing of scooters if the police decide that they are being used to commit anti-social, illegal acts. The wide-ranging review of offences is ongoing. I suspect that transport issues are devolved in Northern Ireland, but I will check for the noble Lord. I will respond to him in due course. I will maintain my discussion on direct Home Office issues but will refer any points that have been raised here on transport issues so that my noble friend Lord Hendy is appraised of the feelings of the House.
London Stock Exchange: Decline in UK Funds
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the net £9.6 billion decline in investment in UK funds in the London Stock Exchange in 2024.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a net decline in investment in UK funds for the past nine consecutive years. This is, of course, a matter of concern, although this does reflect global trends, and the outflow in 2024 was £2.5 billion less than in 2023. The UK’s capital markets remain some of the strongest and deepest in the world, and the UK is a leading centre for international capital raising, last year raising over £20 billion of equity capital—more than the next three European exchanges combined.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to visit the stock exchange this week with other parliamentarians from the Industry and Parliament Trust. The stock exchange is important to national economic welfare. It is therefore unfortunate that the Government have scrapped the last Government’s plan for a tax-free Great British ISA, incentivising savers to invest in British stocks and shares. How does the Minister intend now to encourage people, including first-time investors, to invest in such shares?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and for telling us about her first-hand experience this week. She may know that feedback from industry and consumers on the last Government’s proposed Great British ISA was mixed at best, and no clear value-for-money case was made for that, so, as she says, we will not be proceeding with it. But as she will know, at the Masion House speech the Chancellor published the interim report on the pensions investment review and launched consultations on measures that would deliver a major consolidation of the defined contribution market and local government pension schemes. They could unlock around £80 billion for investment in private equity and infrastructure, but of course, there is no guarantee that that will be invested in UK markets, as she says. The pensions review is absolutely committed to looking at further ways in which that can be achieved.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, when the Government chose not to follow the overwhelming response calling to exempt listed investment companies, otherwise known as listed funds, from consumer collective investments and to refer them to the Financial Conduct Authority consultation, did they realise that it would cost another £30 billion in lost investment? Did the Government realise that their interim solution, which the FCA is not enforcing, is a short-term solution and cannot give confidence to what are long-term investors and investments? Does the Minister agree that correct arithmetic cannot be a matter for consultation, and will he facilitate my meeting with officials to explain that beneath the jargon, smoke and mirrors, this issue is a simple matter of correct arithmetic?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and once again, I pay tribute to her for her campaigning on this issue. The Government absolutely recognise the key role the investment company sector plays in the UK economy; it represents over 30% of the FTSE 250 and invests in assets that support the Government’s growth agenda. We have listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s concerns, not least through her campaigning in the previous Parliament and her Private Member’s Bill in this Parliament. Last year we legislated, I think as a direct result of her campaigning, to reform retail disclosure, with the FCA launching a consultation on an entire replacement regime in December.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the tax-dodging fast-fashion firm Shein, having been rejected in New York, is now apparently seeking to list on the London Stock Exchange. Does the Minister agree with Liam Byrne, the chair of the Business and Trade Committee, who wrote to LSE asking if it agreed that it was important that firms seeking to list on the exchange have safeguards against forced labour in their products?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The decision on whether a firm can list in the UK is a matter for the independent regulator, the FCA, subject to a firm meeting its listing rules and relevant disclosure requirements.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the chief beneficiary of the loss of business from London has been New York, where companies are not subject to stamp duty. Is the Minister’s department prepared to consider lifting this handicap from the London Stock Exchange to give us more of an equal chance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Stamp taxes on shares raise more than £4 billion a year in revenue. Targeted design features such as the exemption for transfers made on growth markets also support the UK’s competitiveness. This matter is out of scope of the pensions review, but we of course keep all taxes under review.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the London Stock Exchange suffered its biggest exit in a decade in 2024, with 88 companies moving out of the market compared with 18 new listings. The drop in liquidity and trading activity began with the 2008 financial crash but accelerated significantly with Brexit. We all want a rebound, but will the Government take the necessary steps to rebuild liquidity by strengthening our relationship with the EU? A customs union would be a good first step; as one investor said to me, “Outside of the EU, why choose London over New York?”
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and she knows I agree with her analysis of the effects of Brexit. Firms may, of course, choose to list in other countries for a variety of reasons, and the Government appreciate that there is a perception that firms, especially tech firms, will have larger valuations in the US. We are determined to change that perception, which is why the Government are taking forward an ambitious programme of reforms to boost the attractiveness of UK markets and to support firms to start, scale, list and, importantly, stay here. As she knows, through the Government’s work on the EU reset, we will absolutely strengthen our relationship with the European Union.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the Minister know that Australian pension funds invest 80% in Australia? Thirty years ago in this country, it was 40%, and in earlier years it was 60% and 70%. It seems to me that the situation is rather more serious than just “looking at further ways”. Does the Minister agree that if we really are to attract more FDI and sovereign wealth funds and create an attractive centre for high-innovation investment in this country, we need something a little beefier than what he has indicated so far?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and I agree with every word he said. We have been very guided by the Australian experience. We have been clear that UK pension funds are investing a lot less in the domestic economy than overseas counterparts. Australia and Canada are two that have been spoken about. He talks about beefier measures, but the pensions review is the most fundamental review of pensions for a generation, and it is actively considering what further interventions may be needed by the Government to ensure that our reforms to the UK pension system benefit UK growth.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Minister previously referred to corporation tax. Corporation tax in this country is uncompetitive compared to corporation tax across the water in the Irish Republic, where it is about half. The Republic has succeeded in attracting a number of international tech companies to set up their businesses there, at the expense of the United Kingdom. My home town of Macclesfield lost a significant investment of £400 million by AstraZeneca, which went directly into a pharmaceutical cluster in Cork. Can the Minister ask his officials to look into why, notwithstanding our uncompetitive corporation tax, we consistently lose out to the Republic of Ireland? Its civil servants are very good at working around ours, at the expense of the United Kingdom.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord says that the corporation tax is uncompetitive, but it is where his Government put it. We have said that we will cap it at that level for the remainder of this Parliament; it is one of the most competitive in the G7. We have also said that if it looks uncompetitive at any point, we will act.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten the House on the conversations his department has had with UK pension funds on the barriers to them investing in the UK? What sort of concerns do they express, and what are the Government doing to overcome them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have already set out, that is exactly what the pension review is looking at: identifying those barriers and why UK pension funds invest less in the UK than their overseas counterparts. The consultation is currently live and we will feed back on it in due course.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us why, in opposition, the Labour Party proposed that it would follow the French Tibi approach to pension investment when they got into government, but since getting in, it has decided not to mandate investment from pension funds?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I say, the pension review is considering whether further government intervention may be needed to ensure that our reforms to the UK pension system benefit UK growth. Of course, throughout this process, we will continue to work with the pensions industry to improve saver outcomes and increase investment in UK markets.
British Council
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their response is to the concerns expressed by the Chief Executive of the British Council for the future of that organisation; and what steps they are taking to ensure that the British Council's art collection is not to be sold off.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the British Council’s board of trustees is ultimately responsible for the British Council’s financial sustainability. The Government highly value the British Council as a UK soft power asset and are committed to working with it to ensure its financial sustainability. The FCDO is exploring all options, including the sale of assets, with the British Council and the Treasury to ensure this.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, will the Government properly support the British Council which does so much for our culture and soft power, the soft power council indeed that already exists but is under enormous financial pressure? It is considering closing up to 40 country operations. The Government should take careful note that wherever we move out from, Russia or China are poised to move in. Will the Government forgive the Covid loan, with interest accruing at the commercial rate of £1 million a month? Will they review the funding of a vital institution that has been underfunded by government for years?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will not be forgiving the loan. The loan was made by our predecessor Government. I cannot explain why it was done in the way that it was, and it is unfortunate that a payment schedule was not agreed as part of that process. However, we are where we are. We are working very closely with the British Council. We speak on a regular basis, and I have visited the council when I have been on overseas visits. What it does is tremendous. What the noble Earl says about other nations filling the gaps that we leave is correct. However, we must ensure that the British Council is put on a sustainable footing for the long term. That is why we are working closely with it and looking at all viable options to make sure that that is what happens.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about working closely with the British Council, but the Government give the British Council only about 15% of its total revenue. Regardless of where fault lies, it is unconscionable that the British Council is having to pay £14 million a year in interest on a Covid loan. It is no good saying that we are where we are, when the Government have just launched a very high-profile Soft Power Council. The British Council, alongside the BBC World Service, is the most important arm’s-length body in projecting British soft power. We cannot simply say we are where we are and leave it at that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Nobody is saying we are where we are and let us leave it at that, but we are where we are. This is not where I would wish to be, for all the reasons that the noble Lord says. We must protect the British Council, and enhance and strengthen it. I am very pleased to say that the British Council is a full participant of the Soft Power Council. I have spoken to the chief executive to get some advice on how we might go about setting it up and how to take that forward. He is fully involved, and quite right too It is our determination that the British Council is strong and grows, and is able to do more of what it has done for decades. As the noble Lord says, it is a vital part of our soft power work.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I had the privilege of being chair of the British Council for six years, at the beginning of this century—which was quite a while ago, when I was a much younger woman. As I travelled the world, looking at the projects that were conducted by the British Council, I found that it was the envy of the world. It was the envy of France and Germany; they too had cultural organisations, but those never had the reach or success rate of the British Council. The scandal has been the diminution of the government grant to the British Council over the last 15 years. Given the situation we are facing—where we are watching the United States retreat from the world and from obligations to the world, and from the soft power that it exercised through USAID—is this not the very moment when we should be stepping forward and making sure that we are the people who can do soft power better than anyone? Can there not be an increase in the grant to the British Council and assistance in dealing with this debt?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
At the moment, the Government provide around 16% of the British Council's funding. The rest, to the British Council’s enduring credit, it manages to raise itself through its own activities—mostly English language tuition and other activities that it conducts. The balance of that we are discussing with the British Council. However, it is a strength that the council has that degree of independence from government, and I would not wish to see that jeopardised. Whether or not we can increase the government grant and to what extent is open to discussion, but I point out gently that, if we did decide to do that, the money would have to come from somewhere else.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we welcome today the vice-chair of the British Council as a new Labour Peer. We on these Benches look forward to robust defence of the British Council from the Government Benches. This is a Covid loan. The loss that the British Council made was due to Covid and the drying-up of English language teaching. There are many other Covid loans outstanding. Many of them were fraudulent, as we know; this clearly was not. The Government will struggle to recover some of those others. This was clearly an honest loan made in honest circumstances. Can we not treat this in that context, while the Government perhaps work harder on recovering other Covid loans which are a great deal less honest?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will not get into the issue of the other Covid loans, because it is beyond my remit. The noble Lord talks about defending the British Council. There is no need to defend the British Council from this Government; we are strong allies, supporters, friends and protectors of the British Council. The British Council will thrive under this Government. However, it is right that we are going through the process that we are now to make sure that the British Council is as strong as it can be going forward and that it can adapt to face its current challenges, needs and demands. The noble Lord is absolutely right to mention that our dear and noble friend Lady Alexander, who is currently the vice-chair of the British Council, will soon be joining us on these Benches.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know she was introduced today. I had assumed that she was having a cup of tea or something, but I see she is here. Fantastic. It is even better that she is here to witness the strength of feeling and support from across this House for the British Council. We welcome her with warm hearts.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government should be commended for setting up the Soft Power Council, but, for the last 90 years, the British Council has been a vital component of the way in which this country projects its values and influence around the world. A powerful example of this is the current photography exhibition in Portcullis House, which comes from the British Council’s season of culture between the UK and Ukraine. In our debate on Thursday on the creative industries, I asked whether, rather than forcing the British Council to sell off the artworks that it has collected over nearly a century, the Government might look at the acceptance in lieu scheme. Those debts could then be offset but these artworks could be kept and shared with the public here in the UK and around the world. Is that something that the Foreign Office has discussed with DCMS or the British Council?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I should make it very clear that nobody is forcing the British Council to make any decision in any direction about its art collection. As I understand it, around half of that is covenanted anyway and could not be sold. There is a decision to be made, and it is right for the British Council—I would defend it on this—to look at other assets and make a decision. What that decision should be is not for me to say, but I support at least looking at that option. Does Rachel Reeves want to be paid in art? I very much doubt it. What is important is that we are able to move forward, alongside the British Council, and that it is strengthened and can get the loan on a sustainable footing, look at where its income streams are coming from, and ensure that it can grow and be strong in the future.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a long-term member of the Hay Festival. We have worked for many years with the British Council and we now are working with the Soft Power Council. Despite many questions across the House just now, I do not understand why we need both. I gather that the Soft Power Council is to be more businesslike. However, looking at the record of what we have done in Colombia, Mexico and other countries, I see that we have produced enormous amounts of investment in Britain by soft power. Why do we need both? Why are the Government cutting down the council in favour of this new body? Is it just because they are the new kids on the block?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not an either/or. The British Council is central to the Soft Power Council. However, the Soft Power Council includes business, the Premier League, museums, and science and technology. It will be much bigger, but the British Council will be at the centre of it.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from my noble friend Lady Keeley.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with noble Lords that the British Council is a vital part of the country’s soft power, and we have to recognise that its art collection showcases UK artists and architects across the world, including at the British pavilion at the Venice Biennale. The current financial situation of the British Council is concerning. I have to say, following the other comments, it was irresponsible of the previous Government to leave the British Council dangling with a £197 million Covid loan with no repayment schedule, leading to the current uncertainty. It is good to hear the strength of feeling in support of the British Council, but can my noble friend the Minister say any more about what steps will be taken to get it on to a sustainable footing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The issue of the loan needs to be dealt with, but no one should think that that is the only thing that the British Council needs to concern itself with in making sure that it is as strong as it can be in the future. It needs to look at changes in the way language tuition takes place and at different parts of the world where it may not operate currently but might wish to in the future. All of these questions need to be discussed and thought through thoroughly, so that we get a strong, sustainable business plan and are able to see the British Council thrive in the next few years. As everybody has said—there has not been a single word of criticism or doubt about what the British Council brings—this is a vital part of the way that the UK presents itself around the world.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I became Government Chief Whip in July of last year, I assured the House that I would make timely announcements of future recess dates, as I am firmly of the opinion this is good for Members of the House and the Administration and staff who serve the House so well. Therefore, as a treat before the February Recess, I am delighted to be able to provide the House with an update on recess dates. I have already announced the current plan for recesses up until the end of the conference season 2025. There is a notice in the Royal Gallery and the Printed Paper Office. In addition, I can now confirm that, subject to the progress of business, the current plan is for the House to rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 18 December and to return on Monday 5 January. I hope this gives noble Lords plenty of time to plan holidays and spend time with family and friends. I will shortly email around the full list of anticipated recess dates this year to assist the House. Finally, I wish all Members and staff a relaxing and enjoyable February Recess.
US Steel Import Tariffs
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm what conversations Ministers have had with their counterparts in the US about steel tariffs? How many times have Ministers spoken with US trade representatives since last Sunday, for instance? In particular, can she confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? And finally, can she bring us up to date on the Government’s efforts to obtain a free trade agreement with the United States?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think we all agree that the US is an indispensable ally in many areas. As he may have seen, President Trump has said he has had a couple of good, constructive calls with Keir Starmer and the two enjoy a good relationship. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to work with the US to develop a trade deal, and we are keen to work with the Trump Administration to capitalise on opportunities and deepen and strengthen our relationship.
With regard to the specifics around what will happen within the steel sector, there is a lot of hypothesis and noise at the moment, but there are currently no established facts about what that will look like. The Government will make any key decisions in light of those key facts as and when they emerge, and we will not be drawn into a hypothetical conversation.
With regard to a free trade agreement, we have talked about the fact that the US is such a valuable ally, and we would love to be able to deepen those trading relationships. That said, 18% of our trade today already happens with the US. Any free trade agreement set in place would need to best represent UK interests.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, being emollient has never worked with President Trump. Will the Government heed my leader Ed Davey’s calls to work with like-minded allies, including Canada and the EU, to respond to both steel tariffs and potential dumping, including plans for retaliatory tariffs on targeted American exports such as Tesla vehicles? Have Ministers convened a meeting with the leaders of our four UK nations to work together to protect our steel industry? The Canadians have called all their Premiers together. Are the Government working not just with our steel companies but with the unions to protect steel jobs? This country would never start a trade war, but it cannot weakly acquiesce in being the victim of one.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I agree that the UK steel industry is something that we hugely value and look to support in any way that we are able. To that end, we have a steel strategy being published this spring which will outline how we intend to make the industry as sustainable as possible. A steel council is already in existence, and I can confirm that it includes representatives from the union. The Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade is in a regular and open dialogue with the industry, and we will consider all the tools in our toolkit to make sure that we are able to support the industry. I note as well that £2.5 billion of investment has been set aside to support the UK steel industry.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made about the impact on Northern Ireland of EU tariffs in retaliation, given that we in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework would be subject to the EU regime in that regard? Has the Minister spoken with the Northern Ireland Executive about the damage that would be done as a result for Northern Ireland?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Again, it is very difficult to comment on the specifics of what the tariffs will look like when we are at a point when there are few facts and a lot more conversation and speculation. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom customs territory and internal market. For goods moving into Northern Ireland that do not subsequently enter the EU, the duty reimbursement scheme enables traders to reclaim or remit applicable EU duties in full. However, the implications for Northern Ireland of the substance of any arrangements will be a key aspect of the considerations and the ongoing consultation with our partners, both within the UK and within the steel sector at large.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on Tuesday in the other place, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, said that
“a clear-headed sense of the … national interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/25; col. 182.]
was required in reset talks with the EU. Given that that is the case, and following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, can she tell us what His Majesty’s Government are doing proactively with the EU to deal with the complexities and constraints of the Windsor Framework if tariffs come to the EU—I accept her point about hypotheticals—so that it does not impact on Northern Ireland?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
Forgive me. I cannot comment further on the specifics of the Windsor arrangement in absence of the facts, but on the relationship with the EU, this Government were elected with a strong mandate to reset that and make sure that we build on the relationship we have, both with Europe and the US—I do not think this is necessarily a binary choice between the two. I suspect that when we think about the strategy particular to the steel industry, understanding what those relationships look like with the EU but also with the US, and the specifics of any tariff arrangements in place, will be a key factor of those considerations and the strategy at large. We will not be afraid to make sure that we are representing UK industries in supporting the steel industry to the best of our ability.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the steel industry is paying much the highest electricity costs in the world, and unless we can get around that problem, we are not going to be selling steel anywhere. The Minister did not mention that. Could she say what is being done to address that part of the problem, which would not solve all the difficulties but would certainly make things less difficult than they are now?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I acknowledge that electricity and power costs within the UK are higher. In my role, as I think about investment, that is something that we need to make sure we understand and grapple with as we support stronger investment in the UK overall. With regard to the steel industry specifically, there are initiatives and schemes for high-intensity energy consumers within the UK that are valuable assets, such as the steel industry, to support them with those energy costs. However, while I acknowledge that that support is specific to the steel industry, wider UK industry as a whole really needs to understand what we can do to grapple with energy costs. On that, significant investment is under way to increase the supply of energy within the UK and the transition into cleaner energy environments. A lot of work and investment have gone into that as part of the green energy transition.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the steel industry is a strategic asset for the country. The Minister stressed the importance of our link with America, but it is important that the Americans understand that if they are saying that Europe is going to be responsible for its own defence without much American support then the strategic and sovereign capabilities in a number of areas such as steel become even more important. That message needs to be put across.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that the steel industry is a vital asset within the UK. As I think about emerging markets and emerging technologies—for example, the electrification of cars, or building infrastructure to support AI investment around data centres—steel is always going to be an essential component of building up our own expertise, not just within the industry itself but within those other emerging industries. That is why building on our sector expertise and working with that market is going to be key to delivering on the Government’s ambitions on growth. I come back to the point that having a steel strategy—which will be coming out in spring—working with the industry through the steel council and having regular and open dialogue are all essential, and indicative of the value that we place on the industry.
UK-EU Relations
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Before I start, I will say that, while the timing was eventually agreed in the usual channels, it does not really do for your Lordships’ House to hear a Statement seven days after it was given in another place. This House is Parliament, too, and the clear constitutional principle is that if, for their own advantage, the Executive—any Executive—wish to use Parliament as a platform for their policies, their Ministers must, without equivocation, be promptly and fully accountable to both Houses. We may not agree about policies, but Parliament requires prompt answers and a seven-day wait is not good enough for this House and should not become the standard. I must make clear to the House that that is nothing whatever to do with the noble Baroness opposite, who is always open and available to the House.
The Prime Minister is very fond of words beginning with “re”: reset, review, relaunch—what ever happened to that?—and now we are actually hearing “reshuffle”. Those of us on this side remember those dread briefings in the press and we have every sympathy with those on the Front Bench opposite, who try hard to serve this House and who are now reading this kind of spin themselves. I do not get very often to the Dispatch Box now, so let me say, as Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of the Opposition, how much we appreciate noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in the difficult job that they do.
I shall start on one point of agreement. This House is absolutely united in wanting good relations with our European friends and allies. It was in fact our Government who organised the summit of European leaders at Blenheim Palace in July that the Prime Minister spun as his reset idea. The purpose of that summit was precisely to consider the challenges of illegal immigration and security that face our whole continent—welcome discussions that were carried on in Brussels. So, obviously, we have no quarrel with co-operation or sharing ideas.
However, on illegal immigration, were any specific undertakings secured in Brussels to combat this criminal trade? Did perhaps the Prime Minister meet Prime Minister Meloni and ask her about her initiatives to process would-be migrants offshore? Or rather, did he perhaps give Giorgia Meloni a copy of a lecture by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and warn Italy not to try to make her own laws? Will the noble Baroness guarantee that the reset will not result in any return to EU legal frameworks, such as jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK immigration or security policies?
We hear a lot in this Chamber, not least from the Leader, about the need to follow every dot and comma of the Labour manifesto. The Labour manifesto said:
“There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement”.
No freedom of movement: that is pretty clear. So can the noble Baroness clear up the conflicting statements about a new youth mobility agreement, as desirable as many may see that? Did the Home Secretary speak for the Government when she ruled that out?
On trade, can the Government deny that they are considering rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention on rules of origin? If not, how would this stand with their stated commitment to make a clean break from EU trade structures? Will the Government support amendments to the product metrology Bill in your Lordships’ House next week that would block powers to introduce dynamic alignment of regulations with the EU. If not, why not?
We support international co-operation on security. Now, I may be an old man, but on our continent I think that is called NATO. So does the noble Baroness agree that the UK’s defence commitments must be made through NATO, the world’s foremost security alliance, not through ad hoc European arrangements that risk compromising our interests that may or may not have been discussed in Brussels?
Specifically on security, did the Prime Minister discuss co-operation with the EU in the Indian Ocean against the Chinese challenge? Only last week, Russia announced an agreement to open a new naval base in Sudan. France has two naval bases in the Indian Ocean, in Mayotte and Réunion. Both of those are sovereign French territory—EU territory. When the UN suggested that France should give them up, France simply vetoed the resolution. That is what I call “ruthless pragmatism”. So will the Government scrap their foolish plan to give up the Chagos Islands and enter into full-throated security co-operation in the Indian Ocean with our allies, including France, as part of the EU? They might even be able to put the money saved on the deal into building new ships and creating British jobs.
The Statement says the PM told the EU to
“step up and project strength”.
What on earth did he mean by that? Did the langoustines jump from the plates as he pounded the table? President Trump says he wants to see 5% of GDP spent on defence. What percentage target on defence did the PM tell the EU would constitute “stepping up and projecting strength”? Will the noble Baroness please tell us?
We are and remain steadfast across this House in supporting the brave people of Ukraine, and I am glad that was reaffirmed in Brussels. There can be no peace without the consent of Ukraine. Yesterday, though, the US indicated that it did not envisage a practical place for membership of NATO for Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness tell us the UK’s Government’s reaction to that, please? It is important that we should know.
On AI, which is material to our security, the UK attended the summit convened by President Macron this month but refused to sign the declaration. Britain followed the United States and Vice-President Vance. We think the Government are right to preserve our freedom of action, but can the noble Baroness tell the House why the UK declined to sign the declaration?
The Statement is silent on fish. When we left the EU, there was a temporary arrangement to allow EU fishermen to adjust to changed circumstances. The brave fishing folk of the UK now expect full rights and full access to our own waters. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that they will get those fair deserts, or will fishing communities be treated in the same way as farming ones?
Finally, where will ruthless pragmatism place us in a battle, which we hope will not occur, between the EU and US on tariffs? Does the reset include co-ordinating policy on tariffs with the European Union or does it not? Will the noble Baroness please tell us?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. He mentioned that he is infrequently at the Dispatch Box these days. That may explain why he perhaps took a little longer. If I go over the 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, I hope the Minister will understand why.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
No, it is 10 minutes normally for questions and 10 minutes for the answers.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
It is 20 in total, including the answers. Anyway, we are all vehemently agreeing that it is 20 minutes in total. The convention I was always taught was that it is about 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, and the response is about 10 minutes. I will carry on.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I am now being told that I am time-wasting and that I have to speak up. I have never been told in your Lordships’ House that I need to speak up.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that bringing a Statement a week after it was given is not acceptable. In particular, the world has already changed so much in a week that the musings that have come from Washington, from Donald Trump and his Cabinet Ministers, raise serious concerns about Ukraine, which were discussed this morning. These Benches may agree with the Conservatives that NATO matters, but at the moment the people who are putting Ukraine at risk and not supporting Ukraine are our American allies in NATO. If they are not supporting Ukraine, we need to work far more closely with our European allies to make sure there is no agreement on the future of Ukraine without Ukraine, the UK and other European voices. Does the Minister agree?
Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I find that some aspects of the Statement might be welcome. Having co-operation and meetings is desirable. If we want to rebuild our relations with Europe, we need to have regular meetings. The Ministers, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty, have had regular bilateral and multilateral meetings with our European partners. I declare an interest, wearing my academic hat: I am currently doing some work on the UK’s bilateral relations with the EU generally and with Germany in particular. The feedback we get is that these meetings are well-received by European partners, but what are they leading to?
As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we have a reset. We have been told we are not having a rewind, but what does that actually mean? There is little detail in the Statement and a brief reference to the meeting Minister Thomas-Symonds had with Maroš Šefčovič. It is almost impossible to scrutinise what is going on to hold the Government to account. Could the Minister perhaps talk to her colleagues in the other place to see whether a little more detail could be forthcoming? What does the reset mean?
Finally, if we are having a reset and ruthless pragmatism, could the Minister tell us what is meant by “ruthless pragmatism”? Under the new Labour Government, essentially, the approach was promiscuous bilateralism—to have bilateral relationships with as many European partners as possible in order to achieve effectively short-term goals. When the UK got what it wanted, it disappeared; reciprocity was absent. Do His Majesty’s Government understand the importance of reciprocity if we are to rebuild our relationships with Europe? Can ruthless pragmatism include an understanding of that? Does it also include the need to compromise—for example, with movement on a youth mobility scheme, which is not the same as free movement?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for their comments. They raised a number of important issues, which I will attempt to address in the time remaining.
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said last week, on 3 February
“the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU”.
At the informal retreat, the Prime Minister
“discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO”.
The Prime Minister clearly outlined
“a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year”.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, our support for Ukraine is unequivocal.
The Prime Minister also set out a strong case for European security and defence, an ambitious UK-EU security partnership and a deeper role for Europe within NATO. Our reset priorities are to protect the security and safety of UK nationals and the wider collective security of Europe, and to support growth through removing barriers to trade. Shortly after the retreat, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May.
This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind on Brexit; we are hitting reset. As we made clear in our manifesto, we are not undoing Brexit. We are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a way even the leader of the Opposition has made clear that the previous Government failed to do. This is the spirit that we are taking into discussions with the EU as we approach the summit and beyond. This is not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade, within our clear red lines. Having a smooth trading relationship with European partners is essential to driving growth at home. This is one of the options we are open to looking at to reduce barriers. It is right and responsible that we are looking at it to determine what is in the UK’s national interest. However, we do not currently have plans to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention.
On the question of youth mobility, as I made clear during the recent debate on this in your Lordships’ House, this Government recognise the value of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. However, in response to the noble Lord’s point with regard to a prospective scheme on youth mobility in the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for youth mobility schemes. However, we will look at any proposals from the EU on this and a range of other issues.
If I do not get the opportunity to respond to the other points that have been raised I will write. On AI, as we develop our approach to regulating AI, we recognise the need to engage with a range of international partners. This includes engaging with the EU, which is a key science and technology partner, as well as working alongside the EU and other partners in the G7, the OECD, the UN and other international fora. We take a very close interest, as noble Lords will be clear is appropriate, in how our largest trading partners are regulating in similar areas. We have regular exchanges with the EU on regulatory developments.
On Chagos, as noble Lords will be aware, the British Indian Ocean Territory deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK national security. This deal will protect the base on Diego Garcia and cement a UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. It is a bit of a stretch to raise this in a debate on the EU reset, but I hope the noble Lord will be content with my response.
On the timing of this Statement, as the noble Lord opposite knows, Statements are scheduled and agreed through the usual channels. As the noble Lord will also know, the Opposition are requesting that every Statement is repeated in this House, which is creating pressures on scheduling. I understand from the Chief Whip that work is ongoing to improve this after the recess.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister made the point in Brussels that the world is very different from that in 2016 and even from that in 2024. A number of noble Lords have noted that the world is changing even on a week-by-week basis. In this time of uncertainty, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make our people safer and more prosperous. That is at the core of our national interest and will contribute to this Government’s ambitious plan for change. It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and for people across the continent.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches note with interest the call from the noble Lord, Lord True, for a substantial increase in our defence spending—and no doubt for the higher taxes to pay for it. We also think that the correct adjective to describe the Government’s approach to the EU is not ruthless but timid. It is timid in defining a reset by the negatives of what we are not doing, rather than what we are doing. It is timid because we are not really investing in finding out what we require and what costs and benefits that would have.
I want to ask the Minister: first, are we rebuilding the expertise in Whitehall, which we had abandoned in recent years, on how the EU works, on relations with the Commission and on the complications of regulations in the European Union, which we have to relate to and which I think a great many people now simply do not understand? Secondly, since we are clearly heading towards the sort of relationship that Switzerland has with the European Union—untidy, painful but necessary—are we spending a lot of time talking to the Swiss about the difficulties of their relations with the European Union? That is where we are likely to end up if this timid half-reset proceeds within the boundaries which the Government, frightened of the Daily Mail as they are, are about to pursue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On whether the Government’s approach is timid, I note that if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, believes we are too timid and the noble Lord, Lord True, thinks we are potentially going too far, it is possible that we are getting the balance right. The Government are determined to reset the relationship with our European friends. The EU is the UK’s largest trading partner, and it would be irresponsible if this Government did not attempt to make sure we have good relations with the EU. This has been a priority of this Government. It is five years since the UK exited the EU, and we are determined to make sure that, with economic growth being the number one mission of this Government, boosting trade abroad, including with the EU, is absolutely essential to delivering a strong economy at home.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the issue of Diego Garcia has been mentioned. What stage have His Majesty’s Government got to in agreeing with the Americans on the proposed arrangements? If they have agreed, have the Americans also agreed to make a contribution?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Did I understand correctly that the noble and gallant Lord’s question related to the deal on Chagos?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
With respect to your Lordships’ House, this is going so far from the issues covered within an EU-UK reset that I will refer the noble and gallant Lord back to the point I made during my first response, but I will ensure that the noble and gallant Lord gets that response in writing.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain to us why we never seem to see the Attorney-General in this House? He is constantly telling us how important international law is; maybe he could explain why we have this obsession with not being involved in any way with European law? If we are going to reset our relations with Europe, we are going to find it very difficult to do so without accepting some form of adjudication, and that means some sort of sort of legal framework. Even the Norwegians managed to accept that. Could the Minister tell us exactly what the thinking is on how we can get a reset without any agreement on any legal structure to enforce it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not going to give a blow-by-blow account of ongoing discussions. In relation to my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer’s presence, or otherwise, in your Lordships’ House, I see him pretty regularly. I have no idea where the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is when the Attorney-General is in your Lordships’ House; I would suggest, if the noble Lord wants him to answer questions, that he put appropriate Questions into the ballot.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is disappointing that there was no mention in the Statement referring to any discussion about the effect of Brexit on the arts and creative industries. When are the UK Government going to have that discussion with the EU, bearing in mind that the creative industries are hugely important to this country, as the Minister knows? The creative industries are waiting on this.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are committed, as set out in our manifesto, to supporting our creative industries and our creative artists in touring and performing around Europe. I am happy to meet the noble Earl, and I will ensure that my DCMS office gets in touch with him. I am not going to give a description of where we are regarding ongoing discussions or a commentary on negotiations. We are clear, as I know the noble Earl is, that this could help deliver real benefits not just to artists in this country but to artists and venues from across the EU.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Brussels has already set out its case that it wants to renegotiate the fishing arrangements. The Government will find that agriculture, fish and food is often the last hurdle in securing a trade deal. I am pleased that the Government are continuing to defend the decision to protect sand eels in order to protect puffins and kittiwakes, but the Government should be seeking to try and open up the export of foods, because the French Government are refusing to put in the necessary facilities in France and that is blocking the export of foods into that country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On fisheries, the UK and EU share a commitment to protecting the marine environment through various international agreements. We do believe that, by working together on this and other food export issues, we can effectively deliver on our commitments in a way that supports the long-term sustainability and resilience of our fishing fleets, and that protects our food exports and imports in a way that benefits the UK in the trade position we will have going forward.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in the reset talks to what extent are the Government taking account of two factors affecting Northern Ireland? First, with the current review being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, into the workings of the Windsor Framework, how will that play into the discussions? Secondly, given the continuing lack of any support whatsoever in the unionist community for the current arrangements under the Windsor Framework, there is a breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. To what extent are the Government cognisant of those very fundamental points?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord referenced the commissioning of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct an independent review of the Windsor Framework. This will report within six months. Looking ahead, we are committed to continuing to seek joint solutions with the EU to challenges that might arise in the future around the Windsor Framework. We are taking forward our commitments, as set out in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, including the implementation of the UK internal market system. For example, the Government announced the membership of the independent monitoring panel, and the chair of InterTrade UK.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, of the 70 direct engagements that UK Ministers have had with EU counterparts, which have included discussing or progressing a youth mobility scheme? The Minister touched on this earlier, but why will His Majesty’s Government not consider proactively proposing a new youth mobility scheme? As the Minister highlighted, there are many benefits to having such a scheme.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this, the Government recognise the value of schemes that give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. We have the Turing scheme and, separate to that, the UK operates a number of bilateral youth mobility schemes with European countries such as Iceland and Andorra and with a number of our global partners. We do not have a proposal or plan for a youth mobility scheme, but we will look at any EU proposals on a range of issues. But, as I outlined in the debate we had on youth mobility in your Lordships’ House a couple of weeks ago, the EU has not yet come forward with definite proposals on this point.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Government have set out two of their objectives for this supposed reset: an agreement on SPS—agri-food—and some sort of agreement on the emissions trading scheme, with closer linkage between our scheme and the EU’s. In its negotiating document that was made public before Christmas, the EU said that agreements in those areas would be possible only if there were dynamic alignment in the application of EU law, jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and an EU enforcement mechanism. Will the Minister confirm that such terms will not be acceptable to the British Government in this reset? If she is not willing to give such a clear denial, should we not conclude that such terms could in fact be negotiated in this reset?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the Government are committed to pursuing an agreement that could reduce trade friction and bring benefits to both the UK and the EU. The UK and the EU are like-minded partners with similarly high standards, and we have been clear that an SPS agreement could boost trade and deliver benefits on both sides.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, we had a useful debate on this subject a few days ago, and I noted very considerable agreement on the creative industries, as the noble Baroness mentioned. But I ask her one specific question: will this reset include an attempt to relieve the problems caused by cabotage, which are really sinking many touring proposals at the moment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I restate that we are committed to addressing this. I will write to the noble Lord on his points.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I concur with my noble friend the shadow Leader’s comments about the timeliness of accountability. In that context, given the limited opportunities for scrutiny and oversight of the Government’s EU policy, with the demise of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place—in contrast to the forensic, detailed scrutiny of the previous Government’s negotiating policy in the run-up to our exit in 2021—will the Government now change or reverse their policy and publish an extensive strategy in terms of a negotiating mandate to be put to the European Union in the next few months, particularly on the specific point of the role of the European Court of Justice?
On the second point—I am not sure the Minister answered it directly—will she give an unequivocal commitment to protect UK fishing rights, even under pressure from the Prime Minister’s good friend, President Macron, in the forthcoming negotiations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On fishing rights, in approaching future access arrangements beyond 2026, our position is clear: we will continue to advocate for and support UK fishing communities while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. On the timing of the debate, I repeat what I said earlier: attempts will be made to improve timeliness after the Recess, but Statements are scheduled and agreed with the usual channels. On whether there should be a European committee, my understanding is that there is one. Arguably, given the dire need for a reset following the previous Government’s deteriorating relations with the EU, there should have been more scrutiny under the previous Government, not less.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to that answer, in the previous Parliament a number of White Papers were published by the Government of the day. One in February 2020 set out the approach to the negotiations on the TCA, and another one, I believe in July 2021, set out in some detail the approach to the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Will the Government proceed in a similar manner and produce Command Papers that set out the approach to the negotiations? If so, when are we likely to see them?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that point, but we are not planning to give a blow-by-blow ongoing position on where we are with negotiations. We are clear that we are resetting the relationship with our European friends, and this Government will continue to report back to Parliament, as per the Statement, so that there is the opportunity to debate this. But I note the noble Lord’s point, and I will write to him on that aspect.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, during the general election, Steve Reed, who is now the Government’s Environment Secretary, said that the Labour Party would, in government,
“ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed”.
Interestingly, this was also the Conservative Government’s policy pre Liz Truss, although it was never delivered. Yet, just this week, a Defra spokesperson, when asked about plans for a potential veterinary agreement with the EU, essentially responded, “No comment”. Can the Minister assure me that the Labour promise during the general election will be delivered in banning the commercial import of foie gras?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have to say that I do not have that in my pack. I will write to the noble Baroness on that. I personally do not eat foie gras, and I know many noble Lords feel the same.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, hearing about promises at the general election, I am reminded of the clarion calls that came from the then Opposition about smashing the gangs and getting round the table with the French, as if it had not been done before. Can the Minister update us on what is actually happening on the ground? My understanding is that, in terms of the boats, sadly, the crossings are increasing.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are meeting with four countries—France, Germany, Holland and Belgium—on those exact points.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, at present, Northern Ireland is sitting apart from the rest of the UK in relation to Europe. Will any future relationships and management processes that the UK might have with the European Union include Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, so we will all be back into one position again?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to the independent review of the Windsor Framework, led by my noble friend Lord Murphy, which will report within six months. As somebody with family in Northern Ireland, I am very clear that it is absolutely part of the UK.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, returning to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the French President has made it very clear that there can no reset of UK-EU relations unless fisheries are on the table. The Minister said that she would advocate for the rights of UK fishermen. Surely, this is very different from stating that there is going to be no reduction in their rights. Which is it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We can split hairs around particular wording, but I am absolutely clear that the UK Government advocates for and supports UK fishing communities, while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. I stand by those words. That is the Government’s position.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness for what she said both on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean customs deal and on the youth mobility scheme. She essentially said, “It’s not something we’re asking for but, if the other side wants it badly enough, we might be prepared to discuss things”. This seems a very sensible line to take in any negotiations. If they want to put something valuable on the table, such as lifting the checks in Northern Ireland, we should be open to discussions. Why does the Minister not take the same line on the defence agreement? As one of two nuclear powers, we are by far the largest contributor to the defence of Europe. When it comes to putting stuff on the table, I can see why the EU wants us involved, but how on earth have we got ourselves into the position of being the demandeurs here?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am quite proud of the position we are taking on defence in Europe. I am unclear why I should apologise for it. I refer noble Lords to the very clear message from the Defence Secretary, John Healey—including to our ally Ukraine—on our firm determination to ensure that our country is safe and also that we stand with our allies elsewhere in Europe.
Prevent: Learning Review
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am responding to this Statement on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with deep sadness. Sir David Amess was not just a colleague and friend of mine in the other place; he was a true servant of the people. His warmth, kindness, keen sense of humour and unwavering commitment to his constituents set an example to all parliamentarians. His murder was an attack on democracy itself and it is incumbent on us all to do everything in our power to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
The Government are right to publish the Prevent Learning Review into this case. Transparency is crucial in restoring trust in our counterextremism strategies. It is only by learning from past failures that we can strengthen our national security. The findings of the review are concerning. It is clear that the vulnerabilities of the perpetrator were not adequately assessed, that record-keeping was inadequate and that a miscommunication led to an incomplete intervention. Most concerningly, the case was closed too soon, allowing a dangerous individual to slip through the cracks. These are not minor administrative errors but systematic failings that demand urgent attention.
I welcome the fact that all four recommendations of the review have been implemented, but we must go further. The introduction of a new independent Prevent commissioner is an important step, but this role must have real teeth to scrutinise the system and hold authorities to account. The Prevent programme must be laser-focused on countering Islamist extremism—the ideology that led to the murder of Sir David. The independent review of Prevent by William Shawcross made it clear that, too often, the programme has been distracted by vague and politically correct priorities, rather than focusing on the clear and present threat posed by radical Islamism. This must change.
The Government must also address the broader weaknesses in our counterterrorism approach. The British people expect that those who pose a clear danger to our country are properly monitored and, where necessary, detained. We must ask whether current powers are sufficient. Whole-life sentences for terrorists are welcome, but we should also consider greater use of terrorism prevention investigation measures and enhanced surveillance for those who leave Prevent but remain a risk.
Additionally, this review has highlighted the crucial issue of MPs’ security. Public service should not come with a threat of violence. The Government must continue working with the parliamentary security department to ensure that MPs can serve their constituents without fear.
More must be done to clamp down on online radicalisation, which played a role in this case. Social media companies must take greater responsibility for tackling extremist content.
Finally, let us never lose sight of what this debate is truly about. Sir David’s light remains. His service, optimism and belief in his community live on. It is in his memory that we must commit to doing everything possible to prevent another tragedy of this kind. I support the Government’s effort to strengthen Prevent, but I urge Ministers to ensure that this programme never again fails, as it did in this case. We must be ruthless in our commitment to national security and unwavering in our resolve to protect the values that Sir David embodied.
What specific measures will the new independent Prevent commissioner have at their disposal to ensure greater accountability and effectiveness in countering radicalisation?
Secondly, given the concerns raised in the Shawcross review, how will the Government ensure that Prevent remains focused on the most pressing threats, particularly from Islamist extremism, rather than being diluted by other priorities?
What steps are the Government taking to enhance the monitoring of individuals who leave the Prevent programme but may still pose a risk? Should stronger legal powers, such as TPIMs, be considered?
How will the Government work with social media companies to crack down on online radicalisation? What consequences will there be for platforms that fail to remove extremist content?
Lastly, what further reforms are being considered to improve MPs’ security? How will the Speaker’s Conference ensure that lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder are fully implemented?
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the murder of Sir David Amess highlights the urgent need to strengthen our counterterrorism strategy if we are to prevent similar tragedies in future. The terrorist threat is continually evolving. More extremists now follow multiple ideologies, or none at all, with the internet and social media fuelling self-radicalisation. Conspiracy theories, personal grievances, misogyny and anti-Government sentiment further blur the picture, making credible threats harder and harder to predict. To stay effective, our approach must adapt to this increasingly fragmented and unpredictable landscape.
The review that was made public yesterday highlights that Sir David Amess’s killer had his Prevent file closed too soon in 2016—a failure the Home Office and counterterrorism police have known about since at least February 2022. Yet, as we heard last week, less than three years on, a similar pattern of failure has been identified in the review following the Southport stabbings. This suggests that, while much may have been done to improve the workings of Prevent in the last decade, some critical lessons have still not been learned. We therefore echo the sentiments of Sir David’s family in welcoming the fact that light has finally been shone on those failings, following yesterday’s retrospective publication of the 2022 report.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently raised concerns about whether the Prevent strategy is the most effective mechanism for addressing radicalisation. Unfortunately, recent events confirm that its shortcomings are not isolated incidents, and I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to task the new Prevent commissioner with reviewing the handling of Sir David’s case. Can the Minister confirm that the commissioner will have a broad and independent mandate to conduct a thorough assessment of Prevent? Will the Government commit to placing this role on a statutory footing to ensure accountability and effectiveness?
Any comprehensive review must also examine how Prevent collaborates with stakeholders, including police and crime commissioners and elected mayors. Community engagement is central to an effective counterterrorism strategy. Can the Minister outline how local communities will be consulted in the development of future counterextremism policies?
The current system is simply not equipped to manage emerging risks effectively. We live in a world where counterterrorism casework involving young people is increasing, and more referrals are now for individuals with a vulnerability rather than an apparent ideology. To tackle both emerging and traditional forms of radicalisation, we urgently need a system that is built for the reality of modern extremism.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their comments and contributions and I will try to answer the questions accordingly. I begin with the praise given to the late Sir David Amess by the noble Lord. Like him, I served in Parliament with Sir David—in my case, for 28 years. I shared with him a role on the Panel of Chairs, chairing debates in committee and in the House. I found him to be an honest, open colleague who stood up for his constituency with immense passion, and I am very pleased that Southend is now a city as a result of Sir David’s campaign. I also want to remember that primarily, Sir David was a father and a husband, and his family grieve much more than we will ever know. Our thoughts are with them today.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the failures of the Prevent system in the case of the convicted killer of Sir David. There were a number of recommendations, and six findings were highlighted in the report. The Government wanted to publish those findings to ensure that they were open and transparent, and that the concerns raised would not be hidden behind a secret report. It is right that we did that this week, and it is also important that we look at the four recommendations in the report. To date, the Government have completed all four recommendations on key issues. I hope that that will give some comfort to those who have been the victims of previous attacks.
Having said that, we recognise that there are a number of considerations. The Shawcross report, which the noble Lord mentioned, made a number of recommendations; again, the Government have accepted those. They are in the process of implementing, I think, 31 of the 32 recommendations and will complete those in due course.
The noble Lord asked whether we need to look at other forms of monitoring. The terrorism prevention measures, which are in place to monitor people who are on the radar or who have had convictions, are extremely important and the Government keep them under regular review. The noble Lord also mentioned the Prevent commissioner, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We have given the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, a temporary position for the moment, and have asked him to do three things, in effect: a sprint review of what happened in the specific case of Southport and the murders that took place there; a sprint review of what happened in relation to the murder of Sir David Amess, now that this document has been published; and a long-term review—which may well be taken forward with the full-time commissioner, who is shortly to be appointed—of the Prevent legislation as a whole. That review will look at legislation and the operation of Prevent; examine any specific lessons learned from those two horrific incidents—Southport and the murder of Sir David; and examine whether there are any recommendations to bring back to Ministers to continue to improve the position and help ensure that we stop future murders.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned that there is considerable focus on potential Islamist and neo-Nazi terrorism, and that that is considerably fuelled by online activity. We are committed to looking at the implementation of the Online Safety Act, which will come into real effect on 17 March this year. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also written to tech companies, asking them to be very wary of what I would term illegal criminal terrorist content and to remove it, pending the Government’s own review of whether there needs to be further action downstream through the Prevent review as a whole. Online radicalisation is extremely important and is the driver of many of these sole individuals who commit horrific crimes without any organisation behind them. They learn and they mirror, and the Government are extremely cognisant of that self-radicalisation online.
I turn to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, made. It is extremely important that we look at the whole question of internet regulation and at the six failings that were identified and the four recommendations that we have now implemented. I recognise the concerns that have been raised, but there is still a very positive story to tell about much of what is happening in Prevent. Since Prevent was put on a statutory footing by the previous Government in 2014, and onwards since 2015, some 5,000 individuals have been referred and have successfully gone through what I will term de-radicalisation programmes, having been identified as vulnerable individuals with a range of tendencies that are driving them to potential activity. That success has been positive, even though there are terrible failings, of which the murders of Sir David and the three young girls in Southport are critical examples.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the role of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will be to look at Prevent legislation and policy; to oversee and ensure implementation of recommendations from previous reports and reviews, including the one on Sir David; to look at the coronial process; and to look at general Prevent learning reviews. It will be independent of government: no one who knows the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will doubt that he will be independent of government. His job is to make recommendations, raise critical issues and, along with the general political process of the House of Commons and House of Lords, hold Ministers to account on the delivery of these recommendations.
I shall end where I started. Sir David Amess was a good man. He did not deserve the death that he had. He served his constituents well, and we need to be cognisant of the fact, particularly those of us who hold public office as elected Members of Parliament or Members of this House, that what happened to Sir David could have happened to any of us, at a surgery or at a public meeting. I am extremely cognisant of the fact that we need to address this.
Going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the Speaker’s Conference is looking at security. Operation Bridger, the police-Home Office response for Members of Parliament in particular, is looking at security requirements generally. On a case-by-case basis, Members of this House can be examined and supported by Operation Bridger. That is extremely important, because the key thing is that the murder of Sir David Amess was an attack on democracy in this society. It was an attack on all of us, and on all the values that bring us to this House and to the House of Commons. So, I praise his work and I mourn his loss, but our lesson from this event must be to ensure that we improve the Prevent strategy to prevent radicalisation of further individuals downstream.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I conducted the first Prevent review in 2011 and started what became the Shawcross review, which I strongly support. I thank the Government for the remedial steps that have been taken, as described in the Statement, following the loss of a valued colleague with whom I too was in the House of Commons and had many happy exchanges. Can we now be a little bit more positive about the future? Does the Minister agree not only that there have been successes, as he just described, but that some of them have been quite remarkable in turning young men and women from becoming potential terrorists, and that we should not let up in enhancing the effectiveness of Prevent in what is an extremely challenging and difficult area of work, which is sometimes underestimated?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for both his previous work on helping to support to development of the counterterrorism strategy and his comments. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, there have been around 5,000 successful Prevent referrals since 2015, and there are people now living productive, constructive lives who may have gone down the radicalisation route had Prevent intervention not taken place.
I add that I was in the Home Office from 2009 to 2010, and in the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2009, and when we dealt with Prevent then it was an entirely different world. There was no Twitter or Facebook; the internet was relatively in its infancy. In the 14 to 15 years between then and my return to the Home Office, there has been the dark web, radicalisation, fake news—a whole range of things. One of the key issues for the future is asking the tech companies to step up to the plate on what they need to do to help support the Prevent strategy and deradicalisation. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to tech companies, following both the Southport and Sir David Amess reviews, to ensure that we can examine, with them, their responsibilities once the Online Safety Act comes into effect on 17 March.
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He is right that Prevent can be a success and we should not throw it out on the basis of failings that are self-evident but which are not the full story of how the Prevent strategy has worked.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s typically generous remarks about my former colleague Sir David Amess, who was a personal friend and a fine and decent public servant. The city status of Southend-on-Sea and the Children’s Parliament, which he helped to found, are fitting tributes to a good life and one well spent.
Having represented a constituency which was 16% Muslim, I know the difference between those who follow the Muslim faith and those who follow the pernicious poison of Islamism. On the latter, can the Minister reassure the House that the Islamist proselytising that we have often seen across the prison estate, in madrassas and in some mosques in this country will be part of the review, and that the Government will take those issues seriously? If Prevent is in a position to intervene early with some individuals in those settings it may head off some of the much more serious criminal activity.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. The loss of Sir David was felt keenly across the House, but particularly by those who shared his political party or were close to his region. He will be forever remembered for the Adjournment debate, now named the Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate, in the House of Commons. For those who do not know, Sir David was always first up in every Adjournment debate to raise about 46 issues to do with Southend. Of those, 42 or 43 ended up in some positive outcome for his constituents. I should mention that, before Southend, he was the Member of Parliament for Basildon.
The noble Lord raises extremely important points. There is a criminal threshold for individuals who promote Islamist or neo-Nazi terrorism, or terrorism related to any other form of hate, such as misogyny. It is extremely important, if evidence is brought forward and the threshold is crossed, that the police take action via the CPS. The Prevent strategy is particularly about younger people being radicalised by those who have criminal intent and have provided criminal material, or individuals who have crossed that threshold and are having their own grievances or immaturities exploited by individuals for the purpose of terrorist activity. The Prevent strategy is about helping people who are going down that route. I think the noble Lord is referring to the criminal threshold, which is for the police and the CPS to determine. They have my full support to prosecute anybody who encourages terrorist activity.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I fully support the Prevent strategy. It is vital, as one of the four legs of the Contest strategy. Along with Pursue, to arrest the people who did it, Prevent obviously tries to prevent the thing happening, and Prepare ensures we prepare for the consequences.
One thing that needs to be addressed, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised, is that there is a handful of TPIMs in place. For those who are unaware of what that means, it refers to people who are not charged but have appeared in court, and conditions are put on how they live in free society. One of the most effective measures is their relocation, but it is also expensive, as is the surveillance that surrounds them. Over time, the security services have suppressed the number of people under TPIMs because, having served them, they have to follow these people, as do the police.
This situation seriously needs looking at, because we now complain that the police and others did not look at these people to prevent them committing the awful crimes we have heard about today. That suppression, which happens partly through resourcing but partly through accountability, does us no good. I cannot comment on whether 200 or 50 people need to be on these orders, but it needs to be more than a handful, because we expect others to bear that risk. When it goes wrong, we say, “Why didn’t you do something?” It is because we have suppressed the number under TPIMs. The place to decide whether they should be on them is called a court. I am afraid that, in my view, it has not happened in sufficient cases.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord brings a lot of experience to this topic. He is right that a very small number of individuals are currently on TPIM orders. For the House’s information, I publish on a regular basis the number of those on TPIM orders. A Written Ministerial Statement on this was published in, maybe, the last two weeks. From memory, the latest figure is certainly low. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is under 10.
There is an argument to be had but, in a sense, it is not for Ministers. The TPIM legislation is there. If the police and the courts have severe concerns about individuals who may have previous prosecutions, but in this case do not have a prosecution in the specific area, TPIMs are a tool that can be used. It comes with a cost and potential further risks, but it is a valuable tool. Throughout my time in this field, TPIMs have been a way in which individuals who have not committed a crime can be monitored because of the danger they pose, and action can be taken in the event of them moving towards potential terrorist activity.
The noble Lord makes a valuable point, but I cannot, at the moment, give him a plan on resources. However, his point is noted and I will take it back to officials.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to Sir David. My thoughts are with his family, in particular with his daughter, who is being very courageous in pursuing this issue. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Government for the openness and transparency they have shown by publishing this Prevent Learning Review and emphasise the importance of defending democracy by ensuring the security of Members of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the Minister have both said.
Would the Minister agree that the best will in the world and the most thorough procedures, carried out in the most diligent way, cannot guarantee the absence of terrorism, while maintaining the freedoms that we cherish in a liberal democracy—particularly in relation to attacks by lone actors. Would the Minister care to comment on the inference that dedicated professionals involved in these processes might be ignoring credible threats because of political correctness?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Again, he brings a perspective that is helpful to inform government policy as a whole. I am not aware of anybody having their reputation slurred by political correctness, but I say genuinely to him that I have a great admiration for all individuals, in the police and elsewhere, who work to help the Prevent programme have the successes that it has.
There are failings in these cases—again, every individual can fail at different times. Are they systemic? That is what we are asking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at. Are there suggestions for improvement? Yes, there undoubtedly are. Are there suggestions for future legislation? Probably. But the question for me is: is it still worthwhile investing in support for professionals to undertake diversionary work for younger people who are coming into contact with neo-Nazis and Islamists, or indeed who are forming views which will lead to terrorist action downstream? The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes”. As the Government, we have to give full support to those professionals who are making judgments that I do not have to make on a daily basis, but they do. They deserve our full support, but that does not mean that we do not have to learn lessons when things have gone wrong—and in this case, and in the case of Southport, things have gone wrong and lessons need to be learned.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have heard the passion and fury from Katie Amess, David Amess’s daughter, over recent weeks, demanding a full inquiry. I would just like to say that she is very much her father’s daughter and he would be so proud of her. She feels that the Government are ignoring her. I ask the Minister whether he will please look seriously at her common-sense suggestion that the Axel Rudakubana Prevent inquiry is expanded to include Katie’s father’s murderer, Ali Harbi Ali, because, as she says, it is wrong to pick and choose which murders Prevent failed to prevent should be investigated.
Also, does the noble Lord agree that both cases have a lot in common, not least that politicians can get distracted by some bizarre blame games. When Sir David died, there was a swathe of people discussing online civility—anything but discussing radical Islamism. After the Southport killings, what have we been discussing? Selling knives on Amazon. It does not feel too serious to me. A full inquiry into both together would be helpful for everyone.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have ordered a public inquiry into the Southport murders. We agreed to do that and we are looking currently at terms of reference and a number of other measures to get that inquiry under way. We have asked for an initial Prevent review from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to the murder of Sir David. Like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Sir David’s daughter, Katie, who has done herself proud in standing up for the legacy of her father, and also in standing up to make sure that her father has justice and that lessons are learned. That is a vital role for her to do.
We will first review the examination by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, of what has happened, on top of the reviews that have been undertaken, which we published this week. In the light of that, we will consider further discussions downstream. That might not satisfy the noble Baroness now, but I am trying to put that into the context of where we are to make sure that we do not lose valuable lessons from what happened to Sir David.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very gracious and moving tribute he paid to the late Sir David Amess. I was fortunate to be elected on the same day as Sir David, 42 years ago. All of us will never forget the day the news came through of his tragic murder. We owe it to him, on all sides of this House, to make sure that we get this policy right.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know he was elected in 1983 in North West Norfolk. It does not seem like 42 years ago. I went down in flames in Eddisbury on that day. I pay tribute to the fact that he won his seat, as did Sir David on that day. Again, from my perspective, we have a lot of political knockabout in both Houses at times, but you can also spot and respect integrity, and Sir David had integrity. It is important that we recognise and celebrate that.
While we will always have political differences, including with the noble Lord now, we must recognise that behind the politician is a person with a family and a commitment. Whatever drives us into politics for our own values, this is the place to debate them. We should be able to debate them outside, in our constituencies and in public, without the fear of attack or death by those who disagree with the principle of democracy, and not least with the individual who is the face of their ire. It is not just Sir David but my former colleague in the House of Commons, Jo Cox, and many people from Northern Ireland who have stood their ground, put their views forward, been in the public domain and found themselves subject to violence as a result. That is not the way we should be doing things in this United Kingdom.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I too want to thank the Minister for what was not just a kind and generous tribute to Sir David but also an immensely sensitive Statement, and on point in terms of how to address the issue. These things affect us all. David was a neighbour of mine and was one of the first people to welcome me, a Yorkshireman, down to Essex, and to make me feel at home.
We are about to debate the Holocaust. A Holocaust survivor once said to me a few years back that the thing that she noticed most coming to Britain after the war was that the policemen smiled, and that it was easy to meet councillors and officials. What happened to David threatens that. That ease that we have in this country is very much central to what makes us tick and we need to be able to hold on to that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. The noble Lord and I were elected on the same day—9 April 1992—to the House of Commons. One of the great joys I had as a Member of Parliament, was, yes, debating in Parliament, but actually it was having face-to-face surgeries where I walked into a room and did not know who was going to walk through the door and I did not know what problems they would bring; or I would go to a fête or a factory; or I would walk down the street and be stopped by individuals who asked for help and support or sometimes wanted to make a vigorous point about a particular aspect of government policy. That is the essence of our democracy.
The noble Lord has reminded us that the murder of Sir David was an attack on that democracy. For those who have witnessed the growth of authoritarian regimes such as those who will be the subject of the debate shortly on the Holocaust, this democracy of ours is open and should be willing and transparent. We should be held to account for our views and our actions, but we should do so in a way that is with peace, tranquillity and fair and open political debate. The murder of Sir David and the murder of Jo Cox in the political context were horrendous attacks on them and their families, but also on our democracy.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House takes note of Holocaust Memorial Day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is with respect and solemn reflection that I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Many of us have attended Holocaust Memorial Day events across the country, including the national ceremony in London. His Majesty the King attended the commemoration at Auschwitz-Birkenau alongside Chief Rabbi Mirvis, Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich and leaders of 50 countries.
Last week, I had the honour of listening to Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg. What struck me was that, although Manfred is now 94, he related what happened to him as a young boy as though it were yesterday. He told us about the heartbreaking moment when, aged 13, he and his mother were sent off to work while imprisoned at the Preču concentration camp. On their return, his little brother Herman was missing. They never saw him again. For over 70 years, Manfred held a small hope that, somehow, Herman had survived and one day they might be reunited. Sadly, that was not to be. Manfred’s story about his little brother brought home to me that, while we rightly remember that 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, we often miss that 1.5 million were Jewish children.
Manfred’s story touched me deeply, as he spoke of his mother and the loss of her youngest son. I am the youngest son in my family and I recently lost my dear mother. I take this opportunity to give my heartfelt thanks to noble Lords for all their kindness shown to me in the last few weeks. It does not really matter how old you are; the loss of a mother affects you deeply. My mother was an inspiration: one important thing she taught me, which is so relevant to today’s debate, is that we must never forget the lessons of history. The history of the Holocaust provides lessons for the whole world. It shows us what can happen when hatred takes over a society, when barriers are created and fellow humans are treated as something different—something to be despised.
Nazi ideology can be hard to comprehend. It was ruthless and fearsome. Children like Manfred’s younger brother Herman were especially vulnerable to Nazi persecution. Nazi Germany and its collaborators murdered not only 1.5 million Jewish children but tens of thousands of Romani Gypsy children, 5,000 to 7,000 German children with physical and mental disabilities living in institutions, as well as many Polish children and children residing in the German-occupied Soviet Union.
Along with elderly people, children had the lowest rate of survival in concentration camps and killing centres. People over 50 years of age, pregnant women and young children were immediately sent to gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other killing centres. Until mid-1943, all children born in Auschwitz, regardless of origins, were murdered, usually by phenol injection or drowning. Later, non-Jewish newborns were allowed to live. They were entered in the camp records as new arrivals and tattooed with a prisoner number.
Due to woeful conditions in the camp, few lived long. Children born to Jewish mothers were routinely murdered. Thousands of Jewish children survived this brutal carnage, many because they were hidden. With identities disguised, and often physically concealed from the outside world, these youngsters faced constant fear, dilemmas and danger. Theirs was a life in shadows, where a careless remark, a denunciation or the murmurings of inquisitive neighbours could lead to discovery and death.
Of course, none of these stories could be preserved without the men and women with the courage to tell them—women such as the remarkable Lily Ebert MBE, who died at home in London in October last year, aged 100. Her life after Auschwitz showed that, even in the face of unspeakable evil, the human spirit can triumph.
Ann Kirk BEM died earlier this year, at the age of 96. She arrived alone in London aged 10 on the Kindertransport. She dedicated her life to raising awareness about the horrors of Nazism. Anne was married to Bob Kirk BEM, who also came to the UK on the Kindertransport and died late last year, aged 99. They were a wonderful couple who dedicated their lives to sharing their story—a story of how they left their home and parents as children and made new lives in the United Kingdom.
Anne met Bob at a social hub for Jewish refugees called Achdut, which means togetherness. The couple married in 1950 and had two children. It was not until 1992 that they told their sons about their background, after being invited to speak at an event commemorating Kristallnacht at Northwood synagogue. It was during the couple’s speech that their children discovered the truth of their upbringing. I often think how hard it must be for survivors to give their testimony, to return to those moments, to remember those darkest of days and to recount how loved ones—husbands, wives, sons, daughters—were taken away.
I want also to take a moment to debunk the idea that we did not know what was happening. From 1942 onwards, reports of the mass murder of Jews in continental Europe began to reach Britain. As the tide of the war turned against Germany and its allies, the British Jewish community started to plan for post-war relief work. Jewish aid workers began, after the liberation, to report that some children had survived the Nazi concentration camps.
In May 1945, Leonard Montefiore, a well-known philanthropist, travelled to Paris to meet with the heads of Jewish organisations. Before returning home, he wrote to Anthony de Rothschild, chairman of the Central British Fund—now World Jewish Relief—outlining a scheme to bring
“a few hundred children from Bergen-Belsen or Buchenwald”
to Britain. On his return to London, Montefiore drew up detailed arrangements planning not only how he was going to get the children to Britain but how he was going to give them the best possible care.
The British Government approved his proposal and granted permission for 1,000 child survivors to be brought to the UK. At this point, it was believed that no more than 5,000 Jewish children in central and eastern Europe had survived the Holocaust, and those would be cared for in allied and neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, so the Home Office’s offer of 1,000 visas was a fitting response.
That said, the offer of help from the British Government was not without conditions. The children had to be aged 16 years or under and would be granted permission to stay in the UK for only two years. They were not to cost the taxpayer a penny and the Central British Fund was to be financially responsible for the entire cost of looking after them. The money to do this was to be raised privately. It was later stipulated that only children who had been in concentration camps would be admitted to the UK, although the age limit was raised to 18 in 1946.
In the end, just over 700 children came to Britain. They were known as the boys, even though there were girls too, and they arrived in five groups. The first group arrived in August 1945, is known as the Windermere boys and was made up of 300 children. The second group arrived in October 1945, is known as the Southampton boys and was made up of 152 children. The third group arrived in March 1946, is known as the Belgicka boys and was made up of 149 children. The fourth group arrived in June 1946, is known as the Paris boys and was made up of 101 children. The fifth group arrived in April 1948, is known as the Schonfeld boys and was made up of 21 children.
Their story is less well known than that of the Kindertransport, through which 10,000 Jewish children were saved in the aftermath of Kristallnacht in 1938. The boys set up the ’45 Aid Society in 1963. They wanted to say thank you and to give back to the society that had welcomed them. Over time, the running of the ’45 Aid Society has passed to the children of the boys—often referred to as the second generation—the custodians of the testimonies and life stories of the boys. They keep their testimonies alive and make them relevant for future generations, through educational activities, community events and fundraising.
I want to thank these custodians, but I really want to say a special word to the survivors. Every day that you have lived, and every child and grandchild that your families have brought into this world, have served as the ultimate rebuke to evil and the ultimate expression of love and hope. We need only to look at today’s headlines to see that we have not yet extinguished man’s darkest impulses, but none of the tragedies that we see today may rise to the full horror of the Holocaust.
The individuals who are the victims of such unspeakable cruelty make a claim on our conscience. They demand our attention: that we do not turn away; that we choose empathy over indifference; and that our empathy leads to action. That includes confronting the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the world. We have seen attacks on Jews in our streets and in the streets of major western cities. We have seen public places disfigured by swastikas.
Some foreign Governments continue to rinse their history, and some are not willing to recognise that the Nazis could not have done this alone; they needed willing partners. It is up to each of us, every one of us, to forcefully condemn any denial of the Holocaust. It is up to us to combat not only anti-Semitism but racism, bigotry and intolerance in all their forms, here and around the world. We cannot eliminate evil from every heart or hatred from every mind. What we can and must do is make sure that our children and their children learn their history so that they might not repeat it. We can teach our children to speak out against a casual slur. We can teach them that there is no “them”, there is only “us”.
I have had the honour of attending many Holocaust Memorial Day events over the last couple of weeks, each one different and yet all the more meaningful. My department funds the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and this year granted an additional £80,000 to the existing annual grant of £900,000, to ensure that the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony was televised on the BBC. I have been told that 2 million people tuned in to the ceremony.
As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Stockholm declaration, it is important to take stock of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s achievements. IHRA is perhaps best known for its non-legally binding definition of anti-Semitism. There are many other tools relating to accessing archives and safeguarding sites, and a toolkit to fight Holocaust distortion. These are just a few of the tools developed by IHRA in partnership with the experts, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, in particular, in this area.
IHRA is important because it holds each and every one of us to account. We all have issues with our history. The problems we face today are more complex and more subtle. It has been a long process even for democratic countries to confront their own problematic history. Year on year, we see countries rinse their history and rehabilitate people. Well-known anti-Semites morph into nationalists or become heroes in the fight against communism. It was only in 1995 that the French Government accepted responsibility for the deportations and deaths of over 70,000 Jews and Austria finally dispelled the myth of being Hitler’s first victim and made amends to Austrian Nazi victims.
In the United Kingdom and the United States, we need to come to terms with the fact that we did not open our borders and accept Jews fleeing the Nazis. Earlier, I mentioned the Kindertransport. In the case of the UK, we accepted children but not their parents. Most of the children never saw their parents again.
The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Association of Jewish Refugees and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to ensure that we never forget is more important than ever, especially as the number of Holocaust survivors is dwindling. Each and every one of us who has had the privilege of hearing first-hand testimony has a duty to keep their memory alive.
That is why we remain determined to create the UK national Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens—a place where we can learn about the Holocaust, a place which will ensure that we never forget where hatred can lead. Subject to the passage of the Bill, and to recovery of planning consent, we hope to begin construction before the end of this year.
These words of Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel are very important:
“Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed, and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky”.
It has been 80 years since the Soviet Army liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Americans liberated Buchenwald and the British liberated Bergen-Belsen. We owe it to those who were murdered, those who survived and those who liberated the camps to never forget and to ensure that every generation knows where hatred and indifference can lead.
Before I end, I would like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Anderson. We all know how dedicated she is to tackling anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred. She has never given in, despite appalling levels of abuse directed at her. She is someone I greatly admire.
As a man of faith and as the Faith Minister, I think it is only fitting that I end with the following words penned by the late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks—may his memory be a blessing:
“We know that whilst we do not have the ability to change the past, we can change the future. We know that whilst we cannot bring the dead back to life, we can ensure their memories live on and that their deaths were not in vain”.
I look forward to everyone’s contributions, in particular, the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Katz, Lord Evans and Lady Levitt. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important debate to your Lordships’ House today. It has been my solemn duty to bring this debate to the House in previous years, and I congratulate him on his speech. I too am looking forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Sealand and Lord Katz, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. I know the whole House will join me in welcoming them.
On Holocaust Memorial Day every year, we remember the unspeakable crimes of the Nazi regime against the Jewish people. We remember also the many political prisoners, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish, Roma, Sinti, lesbian and gay victims of the Holocaust.
It is on Holocaust Memorial Day that we remember the unique evil of the Holocaust: the killing of Jews because they were Jews, as part of the Nazis’ plan to wipe out the entire Jewish people. The history of the Holocaust is a bitter truth, and we must never shy away from repeating that truth. Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Majdanek and Treblinka are just some of the haunting names of the places where Jews were imprisoned, beaten, worked to death, tortured and exterminated—murdered because they were Jews.
Not all the names of the Nazi camps are so familiar to us. Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen were just two of over 1,000 concentration camps operated by the Nazi regime for the mass persecution and murder of Jews and its other victims. Eighty years ago today, on 13 February 1945, Soviet forces liberated Gross-Rosen concentration camp. By 1945, there were no Jews left at Gross-Rosen because, on 2 December 1941, the head of the camp, Anton Thumann, gave the order that
“no Jew is to remain alive by Christmas”.
On 12 October 1942, the last 37 living Jewish prisoners were sent to Auschwitz.
Isaak Egon Ochshorn, a Jew who was in Gross-Rosen from June 1941 to October 1942, before being transferred to Auschwitz, gave evidence after the liberation of the camps that showed the appalling treatment of Jews at Gross-Rosen. He said:
“The sport of Commandant [Thumann], favoured in winter, was to have many Jews daily thrown alive into a pit and to have them covered with snow until they were suffocated”.
We must never forget.
In this the 80th year following so many liberations, we must also remember that liberation was not the end of the story for the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. Many Jews died early because of the harm the Nazis did to them during the Holocaust. The wounds of families that were broken by the Holocaust were felt for many years and are still felt today.
Holocaust Memorial Day was intended to be a reminder of the suffering of the Jewish people in the past, but we sadly know that Jewish people are still not free from persecution. As we heard from the Minister, since 2023 we have seen a shocking rise in anti-Jewish racism on our streets, online, and in our schools. In 2024, the Community Security Trust recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom, the second-highest total ever reported to the CST in a single year, second only to the 4,296 recorded in 2023.
Anti-Semitism in this country is growing, and it is shaming that the spike in anti-Semitism we have seen over the past year has directly followed the worst massacre of Jews since the fall of the Nazi regime. When I moved this debate last year, just months after the pogrom of 7 October, I recounted the story of 91 year-old Moshe Ridler, a Holocaust survivor murdered in Kibbutz Holit, just over 1 mile from the border with Gaza. His home was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and then by a hand grenade. To his 18 children and great-grandchildren, may his memory be a blessing.
The deaths of the 1,200 people who were murdered in the 7 October pogrom, as well as the ongoing suffering of the hostages and their loved ones, remind us that the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust has never been more important. I put on record my thanks to the CEO of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock CBE, who does so much important work to ensure that our children and grandchildren are taught about the horrors of the Holocaust. I also thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, its CEO, Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE, and her team, which delivers the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony and thousands of local activities across the country.
Eighty years on and still the Jews across the world experience persecution, discrimination and, at worst, fear for their lives. That is the imperative of our commemoration: we must not merely ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten; we must remember, actively reflect on and learn about the unique suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. We must teach it to our children and remind our neighbours of the insidious threat of anti-Semitism. We must never forget—and we must hold to the promise, “Never again”. Only by keeping our covenant to remember may we hope to end anti-Semitism for good.
I look forward to hearing the reflections of noble Lords across the House. My thoughts and prayers are, as always, with the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and their families.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, never were the national anthem’s words,
“Long live our noble King!”,
more apt a tribute than when seeing the King spending hours at Auschwitz-Birkenau, paying tribute with the sincerest words possible. I am sure that the entire Jewish community, here and around the world, is moved and grateful.
For some of us, every day is Holocaust Remembrance Day. My earliest memories are of my mother weeping over my bedside because of her inability to get her mother out of Poland and into this country. She blamed herself for her mother’s death.
On my father’s side, he lost his mother and two siblings. His tiny ancestral village on the border of Poland and Ukraine lay during the war in the path of the Russians coming one way and the Germans coming the other. When the Germans arrived, they summoned all the Jewish women to the village square with their valuables. Next door to my family lived a Polish painter, Eugeniusz Waniek, who subsequently went to Kraków and became very well known.
On her way to the square, my aunt Helena rushed next door to him and thrust a set of silver cutlery wrapped in a linen cloth into his hands. “Keep this”, she said, “until we get back”, which, of course, she and her children never did. He did a brave thing, which would have cost him his life had it been discovered: he hid the silver in the cloth in a box in his garden. At the end of the war, he took it with him to Kraków. There was no internet then and he never knew what had become of my family.
I happened to speak about my origins to Norman Davies, the distinguished historian of Poland. In 2008, he wrote in a Kraków newspaper about my trip to the family village. Waniek, the painter, by then 102, was read this by his carer. He declared that he had something for me and, to cut a long story short, I returned to his flat in Kraków, where, in the presence of the media and after a glass of schnapps and some reminiscences, he presented me with the cutlery in the same linen cloth. They are the only artefacts I have that were touched by my lost family. What a tribute it is to the bravery endemic in such small acts in those terrible times. He died three months later.
So it is with some pain that I wonder what Britain’s politicians and leaders mean when they support Holocaust remembrance. What do they mean by remembering it and by “never again”? What I see is ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism and the mistaken framework that treats the Holocaust as consigned to the Nazi past, not the preceding 2,000 years and today. Perhaps with good intentions, the Holocaust has been globalised. That makes it seem as though Jews were just one of many casualties—and it is therefore exceptional to focus on them or on anti-Semitism—and that the notion of genocide can be spread far, wide and thin.
Jewish scholars will tell you that to assemble the Holocaust with other genocides reduces its meaning to that vague word: hatred. It dilutes and avoids the centrality of anti-Semitism. Restricting the Holocaust to the Jewish tragedy—as it should be—does not mean that the loss of Jewish lives is worth any more than any others. But the record in recent years shows a marked reluctance to acknowledge the specificity of Jewish suffering. The Holocaust is entirely different from the other genocides we remember—in history, continuation, manner of execution, worldwide extent, collaboration and result. The Government, by going along with the structure that the Jewish Shoah should not be commemorated on its own, but always in tandem with other Nazi-targeted groups and more recent genocides, have opened the door to generalising the Holocaust. This enables the Jews to be forgotten and not mentioned by “Good Morning Britain” or Angela Rayner when marking Holocaust Remembrance Day. Sadly, it leads on to comparisons between the Holocaust and the Gaza war, most shockingly by the Irish President.
For half a century, it has been assumed, without evidence, that learning about the Holocaust prevents lapses into anti-Semitism—but it does not. That is in part because the Holocaust has been detached from the rest of Jewish history and because it has been used as a lesson in morality and democracy. It is easy enough to portray the Nazis as evil and the Jews as innocent victims. The lessons go on to indicate that it was not this generation that committed those crimes and that we are not bystanders. That must not be allowed to become an absolution. It should not be allowed to place anti-Semitism firmly in the past—that is wrong. Even in this country, we should not forget the massacre of Jews in 1190 and the expulsion in 1290. In my own hometown, Christ Church Cathedral is built right in the middle, on top of houses occupied by the Jews. There is too much politicisation, de-judaisation and universalisation demonstrated at Holocaust remembrance ceremonies. This is counterproductive.
The late Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, explained how anti-Semitism mutated from hatred of the religion, then the race and now the only Jewish state. Sadly, it is only a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence that stop genocide, as can be seen from more recent genocides. If Israel had existed in 1938, rather than 1948, and had been able to take in refugees rather than being blocked by the British, how many thousands or millions of lives might have been saved? In the 1940s it was able to take in the Jews thrown out of other Middle Eastern states whose persecution we should also remember.
In 2023, we saw the new Holocaust threats from the invaders into Israel from Gaza, and their desire to repeat it. This Government are rightly keen on Holocaust remembrance, but they should accept that they have a special responsibility for the protection, safety and understanding of the State of Israel.
The Government should acknowledge that they have failed to stop anti-Semitism being demonstrated in our universities and on our streets. Holocaust remembrance is ineffective unless backed up by supporting and understanding a safe and strong Israel—that is the real meaning of ensuring never again.
We need to teach that the Holocaust did not succeed. Since the end of it, we have had 24 Nobel prizes, business leaders, philanthropy, cultural achievements and a new state. The distinguishing feature of the Jewish community down the ages is survival. Let us go forward on an upbeat note. We survived against all the odds; not death, not victimhood.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, it is an honour to participate in this debate. I anticipate hearing many more thoughtful and powerful contributions like those we have already heard, and look forward to hearing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who will follow me. I congratulate him on making his maiden speech today, along with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt.
I declare my interest as a former chair of the Council of Christians and Jews. With that in mind, I was very glad to see on the speakers’ list today my friend the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who shared with me as a trustee there. I look forward to what he has to say.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the lives of the 6 million Jewish men, women and children, along with other groups, who were murdered by the Nazis. This year has been particularly significant, as it marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. As the Minister pointed out, as each year goes by, the number of living people who have their own personal accounts of surviving the Holocaust diminishes. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that their lives do not simply become statistics in a history book but that they are remembered as people, each with their own stories and experiences.
In that regard, I commend to your Lordships the Forever Project, an interactive experience that I visited at the Beth Shalom National Holocaust Centre in Nottinghamshire. This project gives people the opportunity to hear from and to have a question and answer session with a hologram of a Holocaust survivor. Through the use of AI and voice recognition, it is an innovative way to preserve their memories and to enable future generations to learn about their experiences. Those memories serve as a reminder and a warning of where anti-Semitism can lead when left unchallenged, and we must be alive to prevent such atrocities recurring. This is why commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day each year is so important.
It is a matter of fact and a matter of shame that, through a distortion of Christian theology, the Church in almost all its branches has historically contributed to the immense suffering and injustice experienced by Jewish people over the ages. It follows that the Church must have a vital role and duty, in partnership with others, in actively standing against anti-Semitism. This is a major task for our renewed theological understanding today.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a Better Future”, but to build such a future we cannot be passive; it requires commitment and action from each one of us. Genocide is not inevitable, nor does it happen overnight. It is gradual, beginning with the othering of those whom we consider different from ourselves, and the normalisation of acts of discrimination and hatred. While the horrors of Auschwitz move further into history, sadly, anti-Semitism does not.
One persuasive analogy of anti-Semitism is that of a virus which mutates over time and reinfects society in different forms. The most recent statistics published by the Community Security Trust, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, underline the dimensions of the resurgence of anti-Semitism in our own time, in our own country. The use of social media has only fuelled this, exposing more people to hateful content and enabling anti-Semitism to spread further and faster.
This is preventable. We can choose to shape a better future, built on our shared humanity and on strengthening the fabric of our communities through mutual understanding and trust. We cannot afford to be complacent bystanders. We must actively challenge anti-Semitism and all discrimination wherever we see it, to seek understanding rather than fearing those who are different from us. We must personally question the small remarks, whether they be so-called jokes or throwaway comments, which can appear insignificant but can so easily build to destructive hate on a greater scale.
Interfaith dialogue plays an important role in this, as well as being an example of how those of different beliefs can come together to find common ground and connection. On Holocaust Memorial Day this year, the Council of Christians and Jews organised a profound morning of testimony, reflection and prayer as a testament to the power and significance of that dialogue.
I finish with some words that Rabbi Charley Baginsky shared at that meeting. She said,
“Optimism, in this sense, is not the denial of pain, but the radical choice to imagine and work toward something better, something more just, something that can heal the divisions we face. This vision of a better future is not a distant dream—it is a call to action. It is a call to reject the forces of hate and division, and to embrace the transformative power of empathy, of connection, of community”.
Let us not forget the horrors of the past, but let the memories of those who experienced them spur us on to build a better future, free from hate and division.
Lord Katz (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in the debate, opened by my noble friend Lord Khan, and to hear from so many noble Lords on this subject, not least, in a few minutes’ time, my noble friend Lord Dubs, whose wise words continue to inspire.
I thank noble Lords from across the House for the warm welcome that I have been given in the few days I have been here. I thank the doorkeepers, attendants and all the staff of the House, who have been so supportive and have done their level best—often in vain—to stop me getting lost. I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, for all the support and encouragement that they have given me.
As the memory of the Holocaust, that most singular act of evil, fades into the distance, and the number of survivors who can bear witness to the cruelty of Nazi persecution diminishes, we must redouble our efforts to etch the Shoah, and subsequent genocides, into our collective memory.
I add my voice to those of many other noble Lords today in thanking the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for all the work that they do to ensure that this happens. However, they face a Sisyphean task. Research from the Claims Conference published last month found that 52% of those surveyed in the UK did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Nearly a third could not name any of the camps or ghettos established in World War II. Those figures underscore the scale of the challenge, in the face of social media misinformation which seeks to downplay, distort and even deny the reality of the Holocaust, one of the most documented events in world history. Our truth is indeed under attack. This is our responsibility too. Debate is coarsened and conspiracies fed when senior politicians compare their opponents with Nazi collaborators or doubt their loyalty to this country.
My family was one of the lucky ones. My dad’s father was the last of my forebears to come to Britain, making the perilous trip from Bialystok—then in Russia, now in Poland—to the East End of London in 1911. Sadly, we know little of what and who he left behind. We cannot be sure, but it seems highly likely that some of my family would have perished in the war, simply for the crime of being born a Jew. My grandfather was a tailor, as was my mum’s father, who insisted that before putting down a deposit on one of the new houses being built in Edgware in the 1930s, the site foreman walked him to the school that was promised to be a few minutes’ away. He knew, as so many immigrant families do, of the power of education to transform your life chances.
The lesson stuck. His daughter, my dear mother Doreen, spent her life teaching and passed the lesson on. As someone who attended a comprehensive that, before me, had never sent a pupil to Oxford, I understand all too well the importance of a decent education in promoting social mobility and providing opportunity, from—perhaps especially from—the earliest years, to university access and vocational education.
This is a vital part of the Government’s economic agenda. We should view human capital as being as important as physical capital when we talk of removing obstacles to growth. I say this as someone who has spent the past two decades working in transport, specifically rail, including for an operator and for the rail union TSSA, where I had the great pleasure and honour of working for Lord Rosser, much missed from this place. So I appreciate the Government’s drive to invest in the infrastructure that our country so dearly needs to thrive. For long a neglected subject, I am pleased to see that this is a real focus for this Government. I am not a died-in-the-wool railwayman. I do not argue rail for rail’s sake but for what it achieves—connecting communities, enabling prosperity and, again, promoting social mobility. We need more rail and more integrated and accessible public transport. I hope to be a strong advocate for it in this place.
More widely, we must build our way out of the economic malaise that we have inherited, using not just infrastructure but housing to address the crisis that young people face—I salute the Government’s ambition on housebuilding and am most definitely a yimby in this regard—nor can we fall into the trap that investment is a zero-sum game geographically. I am a born and bred Londoner but I insist that investing in London will continue to be good for the rest of the country and vice versa. One should not and must not come at the expense of the other.
I pause to reflect that it speaks so highly of both my party and our country that a little over 100 years since Chaim Katz stepped off the boat, fewer than 80 years after Solomon Goldberg left the East End for Edgware and helped found the synagogue there, their grandson is a Peer of the Realm. This is but one thread in the special tapestry woven by immigrants depicting the contribution they have made, and continue to make, in a thousand different ways.
Sadly, the tolerance and generosity of this nation, which helped so many immigrants to settle and thrive, was not to be found for Jewish people in the Labour Party between 2015 and 2019. As chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party since 1920, I and my colleagues found ourselves defending our members, who faced the vile toxin of left anti-Semitism, which had been allowed to enter, and fester in, the party’s bloodstream. Inaction and passivity from the then party leader sent a clear signal that this discrimination was tolerated. The party that so many of us had joined because it believed in equality and fought discrimination doubled down rather than face the difficult truths. It doubled down out of political convenience.
Too many suffered during those years, but it would be truly remiss of me not to mention my noble friends Lady Hodge of Barking, Lady Anderson, my soon-to-be noble friend Luciana Berger, and Dame Louise Ellman, who were the particular and public targets of much of the hatred. The impact on the wider Jewish community in this country was even greater, considering that at the height of the Labour Party’s membership then, it had a membership of well over 400,000 and there are but 300,000 Jews in this country. I will never forget tear-streaked conversations with people in Hendon and Mill Hill—lifelong Jewish Labour voters telling me they simply could not trust the party, our party, any more. How could we have let them down so badly?
It is for ever to his credit that the first thing Keir Starmer did when he won his leadership election was apologise for and vow to root out anti-Semitism from our party. He understood the moral and political necessity of this mission, and he succeeded. Working with my noble friends Lord Evans of Sealand and Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, who I look forward to hearing from later, we in the JLM challenged, cajoled and drove Labour to meet the challenges set down by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, following that body’s landmark ruling that the party had broken equalities law. Process and rule change were part of that story, but education and leadership, as ever, much more so. I will for ever be proud of the role we in the Jewish Labour Movement played in helping to save the Labour Party.
My party is still in the foothills of rebuilding trust with the Jewish community, but I think we have returned to a place where Jews voting in the general election last year made their choice on policy platforms, not out of fear, as they did in 2019. We must never—never—allow that situation to arise again. Indeed, if the 2019 election was in part about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, in turn the 2024 election was, in a smaller part, about anti-Semitism in the whole country. As we have already heard from my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, following 7 October, which saw the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, anti-Semitism has risen to unprecedented levels, not merely as a reaction to the ground war that started some time after that date, but from the day itself.
Anti-Semitism, to paraphrase Conor Cruise O’Brien, is the lightest of sleepers. Any excuse will stir it to life. On our campuses, on our streets, around our homes, our synagogues and our schools, the levels of anxiety and fear that British Jews feel is palpable—the worst I have seen in my lifetime. The Prime Minister has been clear that this spike in anti-Jewish hate is intolerable, just as he has been clear that the remaining hostages taken by Hamas on that fateful day and being held in Gaza still must all be brought home now.
It surely cannot be difficult for us all to grasp that we must not blame British Jews for the actions of the Israeli Government, just as we do not blame British Muslims for the actions of Hamas. From this basic proposition, surely all else must follow. As ever, it is through education that we must tackle hate on all sides. Integral to this is ensuring that Holocaust education is, in the words of our Prime Minister, “a truly national endeavour”.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
It is a privilege and an honour for me to follow the speech of my noble friend, and I congratulate him on what he has done and what he has said today in his speech. As we know, he has been national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement since 2019. He has a long history in the Labour movement. He was political officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, working with our late friend Lord Rosser when he was general secretary. He served on Labour’s National Policy Forum and retains a keen interest in transport matters and rail in particular. He has also served as a local councillor, representing Kilburn for Camden Council from 2010 to 2014. He was a Labour candidate for Hendon in 2017, and for Cities of London and Westminster in 2001, in which role I preceded him—and also lost—many years before. He was recently awarded an MBE for political and public services. I always enjoy meeting colleagues who have been local councillors, with whom I have something in common, and I understand the contribution that local councillors make to life in their communities—we sometimes devalue that here.
Mike also talked about his family history. It is appropriate, on a day when we are debating this topic, that we should remember the family history of people like him and how it led to this country becoming the country it is. He talked strongly about anti-Semitism, a scourge on any country, and on this one when we experienced it. I found the anti-Semitism painful and personally upsetting, and I still do.
Recently, the Prime Minister invited to tea at No. 10 Downing Street—the first time I have been there for some years; well, I am hoping—Holocaust and Kindertransport survivors and above all, their children and grandchildren. There are not many of us left, as has been said, who came to this country on the Kindertransport, and even fewer, sadly, who survived the horrors of the camps. I remember an occasion here, an event that I think the Holocaust Educational Trust organised, in one of the committee rooms. There were Holocaust survivors there, and they asked me what I was. I said, “I just came on a Kindertransport”, and they said, “That’s wonderful”. I said, “Look, compared to what you went through, I just got on a train, and two days later I arrived at Liverpool Street station. What you went through was unbelievably appalling, and we respect what you’ve been through and your sense of purpose and tenacity”. Sadly, there are not many people left in either category, either Holocaust survivors or Kindertransport people, which is why it was interesting to have tea in 10 Downing Street with the Prime Minister. I notice that King Charles has also been to Auschwitz and spoken out strongly in opposition to anti-Semitism.
On the words “never again”, what happened in Israel on 7 October was an appalling tragedy, and with some of the events in Gaza, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur and Syria—and what has happened to the Yazidis—I am afraid it seems that we as a world are not learning what we should.
I shall refer again to Nikky Winton, who organised the Kindertransport that brought me to this country. I became a good friend of his before he died and we chatted occasionally. He was a marvellous example of a human being who devoted himself to helping other people. He got to Prague in 1938-39, he saw what was happening and, unlike other people who say, “This is awful” and walk away, he said, “This is awful. I’m going to do something about it”, and that distinguished him. I will put in a plug for the film “One Life”, which came out about a year ago; I have seen it twice, and I have to say it brought me to tears both times. It is a remarkable tribute to a remarkable individual.
Through the Kindertransport, Britain took 10,000 children, mainly from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Some argue—though this is not the real point of this debate—that 10,000 was not a very large number, but if we did it then we can do it now. Still, that is for a future Bill on another occasion. It is interesting to read Hansard from the time when the Commons was debating whether Britain should take Kindertransport children. There were voices then of the sort that we have heard more recently, but the fact is that this country took the people. As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, just off Central Lobby in the House of Commons, there is a thank-you plaque on behalf of the 10,000 children who arrived in Britain on the Kindertransport, thanking Britain for having given us safety. When I take people on a tour, I show them that and say, “Look, this is where we thank Britain for what they did to save us”.
Like many people, I have been to some of the camps. I went to Auschwitz and I found it a painful experience; it is even painful to think about it today. I was with a friend who had also fled from Czechoslovakia, standing there looking at the suitcases. In those days, people had initials on their suitcases, and we were looking to see if there were any people we knew whose cases were there and who had then died in the camps. I did not see any.
More recently—I think I mentioned this last year—I was invited to Berlin along with Hella Pick, a wonderful journalist, to a commemoration of Kindertransport in the German Bundestag. They had an exhibition about Kindertransport. It was a very moving thing, all the more so because it took place in Berlin in Germany.
I want to reflect on an experience that I think I referred to in this debate last year. Some time ago, I was invited to a school in east London. It was a maintained school, but it was all Muslim boys. The project they were working on was Kindertransport and the Holocaust. I did my little piece about refugees and the Holocaust. The first question in the Q&A came from a 14 or 15 year-old boy, who said, “What do I say to somebody who denies the Holocaust ever happened?” That was such a powerful question. It was a sign that the school was doing a good job and the message was getting home. This was a statement he wanted to be able to repudiate if somebody mentioned it to him elsewhere. Whenever I have spoken to schools about these issues, they really get it. They understand what is going on and it is very rewarding to talk to students. That is why I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the work they do.
If anything is going to come out of the tragedy of the Holocaust, it is the next generation who will carry this forward when those of us who were closer to it are no longer here. That is why I was so shocked when Elon Musk was photographed doing a Hitler salute. Maybe he did not mean it; maybe he did not understand, but it is quite shocking when these sorts of things happen.
I sometimes wonder whether decency and the values we uphold are a thin veneer and these things can even be swept aside. I remember reading some years ago about a German soldier who was working, I think, in Auschwitz and who wrote to his wife back in Germany saying, “Make sure the children clean their teeth”. What a contrast between somebody who was murdering Jews—gassing them, day in and day out—and yet was worried about whether his children were cleaning their teeth. I find that difficult to understand. Last year, tragically, we saw some riots. Again, it made me think that sometimes there is a thin protective layer of decency in countries. Our job is to make that layer much thicker. It is a thin protective layer, because the way those riots exploded and people tried to petrol-bomb hostels housing refugees, I found deeply shocking.
I have spoken to many faith groups, which are all supportive of the cause of refugees. It is a tribute to the many Jewish groups I have spoken to that they are very supportive of refugees. Pretty much all the refugees happen to be Muslims, but the Jewish community is very supportive. That is the sort of thing that should be said more often.
I will finish with one story. I was in a refugee camp in Jordan. It was a decent camp; it had sanitation, electricity and prefabricated buildings. I was talking to a Syrian boy, and I asked him, “What is your situation?”. He said, “Well, I’ve finished my education in the camp. I’ve tried to get a job in the camp, but I can’t. I’ve tried to get a job elsewhere, but I can’t”. It made me think that human beings—I refer to Holocaust survivors in particular—can put up with terrible situations if there is some hope for them at the end of the line. If there is a bit of hope, that is what matters. Our job is to make sure that there is hope and that the scourge of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is eradicated. Our job is to spread that word. That is why I welcome the chance to take part in this debate.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate initiated by the Government during their presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and I congratulate the Minister on his speech. It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as it always is to work with him. We are blessed today by three maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Sealand and Lord Katz, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who are all on the Bench opposite.
Only the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has spoken before me; the chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement has shown what a great contribution he will make to this House. If I may squint at my phone, I found an interview he did with Jewish News in which we explained how his family originated in Białystok—then in Russia, now Poland. He recounted his preparation for his introduction to this House:
“I was asked by this very nice man ‘We just wanted to check whether any of your family has been ennobled?’ I thought to myself that in the past some of my family may well have been on the run from Russian nobility!”
I thought that that encapsulated a bit of his history.
This year, we mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, in January 1945. I was grateful to be invited to the ceremony led by the Foreign Secretary David Lammy at the FCDO, where we heard both from a Holocaust survivor and from a young woman, among many others. She, like myself, is not Jewish, but she spends a lot of her spare time on Holocaust education because she can see how vital it is to all of us.
I recognise the special pain for the Jewish community, but as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust said:
“The Holocaust threatened the fabric of civilisation … prejudice and the language of hatred must be challenged by us all. Holocaust Memorial Day is for everyone”.
The Holocaust Educational Trust, another trust that does such great work, noted:
“As the Holocaust moves from living memory to history, this Holocaust Memorial Day presented a key opportunity to bring the Holocaust to the fore of our national consciousness”.
This was a seam emphasised by His Majesty the King, who said:
“As the number of Holocaust survivors regrettably diminishes with the passage of time, the responsibility of remembrance rests far heavier on our shoulders, and on those of generations yet unborn. The act of remembering the evils of the past remains a vital task and in so doing, we inform our present and shape our future”.
My Liberal Democrat colleague, Vikki Slade MP, made a similar point in the debate two weeks ago in the other place,
“as the living memory of the Holocaust reduces, it is more important than ever that each of us keeps it alive through our own annual acts of remembrance and in calling out antisemitism and all acts of discrimination and hate against groups because of their faith, nationality or identity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/25; col. 1163.]
Last October, we sadly lost 100 year-old Holocaust survivor Lily Ebert, to whom the Minister referred. She did so much work to ensure that the Holocaust would not be forgotten. I am delighted that her mantle has been taken up by her impressive great-grandson, Dov Forman.
I was struck by a comment by the Prime Minister about how in Auschwitz he saw,
“photographs of Nazi guards standing with Jewish prisoners staring at the camera – completely indifferent – and in one case, even smiling”.
The Prime Minister said:
“It showed more powerfully than ever how the Holocaust was a collective endeavour by thousands of ordinary individuals utterly consumed by the hatred of difference”.
The Holocaust was not only a crime wider than the SS; it also did not come out of nowhere. Preceding it there were years, centuries and millennia of discrimination and persecution of Jews, both as groups and as individuals. As my colleague, Vikki Slade, said, before the Holocaust there was,
“a decade of dehumanising a whole community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/25; col. 1163.]
Dehumanisation of people—which has been called the fourth stage of genocide—is the key to enabling not only persecution but extermination. Amid all the terrible bleakness and horrors of Auschwitz, I found the arch over the entrance gate emblazoned with, “Arbeit Macht Frei”, — “work makes you free”—the most chilling in its utter cynicism.
When I go to Jewish and Holocaust museums, or indeed to Yad Vashem, which I have visited twice, I not only find the photographs of persecuted Jews subjected to pogroms, and other victims of the Nazis, hugely emotional; I also find desperately poignant the photos of hard-working, bourgeois and successful Jewish families in German and other towns and cities who strove to fit in, to do everything to become respectable citizens of their home country. They sought to belong, and they were still destroyed.
On my bookshelf at home, I have a book that I have had for about 20 years—I think I bought it in New York. It is by Vienna-born Amos Elon and called The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch. It describes how, in the two centuries from the entry of penniless 14 year-old Moses Mendelssohn, later of course a famous philosopher, into Berlin in 1743—entering through the Rosenthaler Tor, the only gate permitted to Jews, and cattle—until 1933, the German Jews increasingly and hugely contributed to Germany's intellectual, political and economic development. The Weimar Republic was the high point of the assimilation and integration of German Jews into German life. The writer notes:
“Alongside the Germany of anti-Semitism there was a Germany of enlightened liberalism, humane concern, civilised rule of law, good government, social security, and thriving social democracy”.
But none of that saved Germany’s or Europe’s Jews, because the continuing discriminatory attitudes of their fellow citizens had never been removed and were there to be exploited.
I was sorry that London’s Jewish Museum closed in 2023. We do, though, have the impressive Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum and the Wiener Holocaust Library. We are privileged to have, as a Member of this House, the Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein—the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—the grandson of German-Jewish scholar and anti-Nazi campaigner Alfred Wiener, who founded the Wiener library in 1933 in order to warn the world of the Nazi threat. I hope the noble Lord does not mind me referring to him and quoting him in his absence. Within weeks of the appalling attacks by Hamas on 7 October, graffiti was daubed on the Wiener Holocaust Library. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—still, like me, tweeting—understandably reacted, tweeting as @Dannythefink:
“I’m so upset by this graffiti attack on my grandfather’s library. Alfred Wiener had a PhD in Islamic studies and cared deeply about Arab people. To see his Holocaust archive vandalised in this way suggests an attack on Jews not a critique of Israel. It’s dismaying”.
I will finish, as I must, by saying that since 7 October we have seen a distressing rise in anti-Semitic speech and attacks, with hostility to the very existence of the State of Israel. When people chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, this is a call not for two states but for the destruction of Israel, based on not only anti-Zionism but anti-Semitism. We have pledged “Never again”, but political developments around the world, not least in Germany, are deeply troubling. Our vigilance must be constant, vocal and vigorous.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests, particularly those relating to Holocaust remembrance. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, on a wonderful speech. He reminded me very much of how I felt when I first arrived here. I can remember being given an office on the third floor, above Royal Court, and then spending the next two weeks trying to find it again. He gave an informed maiden speech. It is clear that his contribution will make a very big difference to this House. I welcome him here; he comes with a magnificent reputation, and I personally look forward to hearing him speak again.
A couple of weeks ago, I stood close to the railway arch at Auschwitz-Birkenau, close to where, over 80 years ago, my friend Ivor Perl last talked to his mother. On the separation ramp, he jumped lines to join her and his little sister, saying, “I want to be with you, mum”. She replied calmly, “No, Ivor, go and be in the other line with your brother”. He obeyed. They would never see each other again. By the time he was allotted a hut, both mother and daughter were dead and cremated, their ashes cooling. Ivor remembered that it was a beautiful warm spring day.
Noble Lords may recall that Ivor inspired the strap-line of the UK’s presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “In Plain Sight”, meaning that the Holocaust did not happen in dark corners but in bright sunshine, with the whole world watching.
The UK holds the presidency on the cusp of significant change. Within a few short years, Holocaust survivors will move from contemporary memory into history books. How we deal with the loss of witnesses has been vigorously debated for the last few decades. When I took up the role of special envoy 10 years ago, the feeling among some was that empathy was the key, and that everything would fall into place naturally. I had my doubts. Unsupported empathy is fragile and fickle. If there is any doubt about that, consider the indifference the world has shown to the Israeli hostages. Consider the reaction by humanitarian agencies to the three emaciated men who were released—one of whom was hoping to be reunited with a family long dead. Not a single word of comfort came from any of the self-described humanitarian agencies.
For its strategy this year, the UK presidency has adopted a triple-track approach to support empathy around three headings: landscape; archives, including testimony; and objects. On landscape, the IHRA has adopted the safeguarding sites charter, which sets out guidelines for the preservation of murder and detention sites. The UK played a pivotal role in drafting the charter. Across the killing grounds of the Holocaust, sites are deteriorating with the passage of time, neglect and wilful destruction. The charter lays down a set of advice aimed at preserving the sites with dignity.
Complementary to the charter are reminders through people, buildings and places. Our presidency is keen to engage young people, and we did this through the remarkably successful “My Hometown” project. The project invited schools across IHRA member countries to look at what happened in their hometown during the Holocaust. Schools in former occupied countries and those receiving victims of Nazis and their collaborators produced original and moving projects. Participants were from as far afield as Argentina to Greece, and the United States to Poland, and from member countries in between, including the United Kingdom. Most projects attracted favourable media attention, linking familiar buildings and places with the Holocaust locally.
On archives, the presidency has worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees on our legacy project, the Holocaust Testimony portal, which pulls together for the first time testimony from UK Holocaust survivors and refugees who made their home here. This includes testimony from the AJR’s Refugee Voices initiative, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, the Shoah Foundation and many more archives. We hope that more archives, particularly the smaller and more specialised ones, will join in the coming months. The portal allows the testimonies of individual survivors across the decades to be seen in one place. The IHRA formally established the archive forum, which will encourage the flow of information between archives.
I am a past chair of the Arolsen Archives—the world’s most comprehensive archive on the victims and survivors of the Nazis and their collaborators. The collection has information on more than 17.5 million people and belongs to UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme. In recent years, Arolsen has improved public access to the archive.
To commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the camps, the IHRA broadcast over social media “80 Objects/80 Lives”, a digital project of one-minute clips which features 80 objects from filmed testimony of British Holocaust survivors and refugees. The objects represent the personal histories and experiences of Jewish Holocaust survivors, during and at the end of the Second World War. Such objects as teddy bears, a doll, a watch or a spoon take on special meaning. A passport with the letter “J”, a yellow star and a bowl from Bergen-Belsen are bittersweet reminders of a lost world. I thank the Association of Jewish Refugees for its creative help with the 80 objects.
The UK is lucky to have such widespread support for Holocaust organisations, and we used the London plenary to showcase the variety and vivacity of these institutions in the UK. Even in these challenging times, the UK continues to have an excellent reputation in the field of Holocaust remembrance, education and tackling anti-Semitism. The former Attorney-General of Canada, Irwin Cotler, known to many in this Room, described our policy as the gold standard for others to follow.
The UK presidency addressed two pressing problems. We have had special conferences that have dealt with the problems of artificial intelligence and bringing people together across differences, and we organised a conference to deal with the teaching of the Holocaust because there was a lack of confidence after 7 October. We will continue to tackle Holocaust denial and distortion, and will continue to the end to look at the Stockholm Declaration. Next week, we will meet again to look at the next 25 years.
We have moved now. That moment that we saw a couple of weeks ago was poignant on all levels. We will never see the like again. Ten years from now, at the 90th anniversary, there will be no Holocaust survivors to speak. As the Minister said, we are now the custodians of their memory. We have a duty to remember and to tell the truth.
Baroness Levitt (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Katz on his powerful and moving speech. I look forward greatly to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Sealand, who will speak after me. It is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Katz.
Like many others, over the past week or so, because I knew that my maiden speech was fast approaching, I have been anxiously listening to those made by my fellow new entrants to your Lordships’ House. By doing so, I have learned that it is customary to start with thanks. I say this because I want to emphasise that, although it is customary, these are not mere words but something heartfelt and sincere from each of us. The extraordinary friendliness and helpfulness of the House officials, the staff, the police and the doorkeepers have made what could have been a rather overwhelming experience feel achievable.
I pay special tribute to the head doorkeeper, who told me with both humour and firmness when I should say “Good morning” and when I should say “Good afternoon”, depending on whether it was before or after Prayers. I can say with confidence that I am unlikely to forget this early lesson.
I thank all my new colleagues on this side of the House, as well as noble Lords from other parties and the Cross Benches, for the warmth of their welcome. I want to thank my supporters. It has been an honour and a privilege to have had the support and encouragement of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Of my other supporter, I shall say a few words in a few moments.
In my professional life, I was taught at an early stage that you start all addresses by summing up the purpose of your speech in a single sentence. My single sentence is this: I am a criminal barrister. This not only explains what I have been doing for the past 40-odd years but illustrates both what I would like to achieve through my membership of your Lordships’ House and why I wanted to speak in this particular debate.
I am going to guess that, when I said I was a barrister, you probably all thought that you could predict who and what I am. Perhaps words like “establishment” and “conventional” may have crossed your mind. But I thought to myself that, as we are likely to be working together for quite a long a time, I should maybe reveal a little bit more about myself, including perhaps a few things that not many people know about me. I reckoned, I am among friends—none of you are not going to tell anybody, are you? It is all going to be okay.
I was astonishingly badly behaved as a child. When I was 14, I was expelled from a school called Roedean for being disobedient and a bad influence on the other girls. My unfortunate, very worried parents had to find a new school for me, not only in the middle of the academic year but in the middle of a term. One school was persuaded to take me, but I had not learned my lesson. My by now rather less worried and more exasperated parents made weekly trips to the headmistress’s office to try to persuade her not to expel me for a second time. Somehow, I just about lasted the course but, decades later, I was visiting the school under my married name—because I was a little unsure of my welcome—when a familiar voice shouted, in a voice you could have heard in Latvia, “Alison Levitt: you were the worst girl I ever taught!” This was my old history teacher. She went on to say that at school I was a total nuisance, always questioning, always challenging everything. But some years later she discovered that I had become a criminal barrister, “And”, she said, “then it all made sense”.
I am not sure how my fellow barristers will feel about a typical barrister being described as a perennial nuisance, but they will probably agree that a constant questioning of the established order is something we all do, and something of which we are rightly proud. I was called to the Bar in 1988. Women barristers were having a pretty terrible time of it generally, but one of the most demeaning things was that we were not permitted to wear trousers in court. Skirts and dresses only—even when you were having to trudge through the snow to some far-flung court where your client, who was charged with sexual assault, would sit there looking at your legs while you were desperately trying to take instructions and pull down your skirt with your other hand.
Fast forward to 1995, when I was chair of the Young Barristers’ Committee. At my monthly meeting with the then chairman of the Bar, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, asked me, “What can I do for the Young Bar?” I took my courage in both hands and replied, “Trousers”. He was a little bit surprised but, entirely characteristically keen to do what he could for diversity and inclusion at the Bar, he spoke to the Lord Chief Justice, and within days the rules were changed. As late as 1995, it was a novelty for women to wear trousers in court—I ask you. This remains a moment of pride for me.
By now, you may have noticed a bit of theme about me. If I wanted to self-aggrandise, I could call it wanting to achieve justice and support the rule of law, but I suspect that, more accurately, it is endlessly and exasperatingly insisting on swimming upstream. One of the reasons I am so delighted to have joined your Lordships’ House is that I have a lifelong interest in the purposes of legislation which creates criminal offences, and for this reason. Sometimes, laws are entirely pragmatic and designed to achieve a particular end—the compulsory wearing of seatbelts comes to mind—but sometimes a law does something else as well. The things that we make criminal say something about what our society finds unacceptable. An example of this is the change in the law which made rape within marriage an offence. Some said at the time that there would be hardly any prosecutions because it would be impossible to prove lack of belief in consent, but I was in favour of it because I thought that doing this sent a strong message that our society does not believe that women are the chattels of their husbands. Now, decades later, juries do regularly convict of this offence, so sometimes we legislators can actually influence and bring about social change.
The converse of this is that if there are laws which we do not enforce, it tells society that we do not think these transgressions matter. By not catching and not punishing shoplifters, for example, we run the risk of beginning to legitimise so-called low-level dishonesty, for which I predict there will be a very high social price to pay.
I have said that I am a criminal barrister, but for the last three years I have been a judge, doing criminal jury trials at the epic Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London. I resigned about two hours before the announcement of my elevation to your Lordships’ House. So, I have very recent experience of the sharp end of our criminal justice system, which I hope in due course to be able to put to some use in your Lordships’ House.
Others will speak about, and for, the police, the prosecutors, the solicitors and barristers and the part they play, but for now I want to say something appreciative about my former colleagues, the judges, because I can tell you that to a great extent it is their hard work and good will that are holding the beleaguered crown court system together. They deserve our thanks. Also, as old habits die hard, if I occasionally address noble Lords as “members of the jury”, I hope I shall be forgiven.
So, why make my maiden speech as part of the Holocaust Memorial Day debate? I said a few moments ago that I would come back to my other supporter: my noble kinsman Lord Carlile of Berriew. He and I, as some noble Lords will know, have been married for nearly 20 years. Some of you may have assumed that, because of my family’s surname, I am Jewish, but in fact I am not. He is—at least, his family were. My husband’s parents were both Holocaust victims and survivors: his father’s entire family—first wife, parents, sister, niece—were murdered in Poland by the Nazis. The only one to survive was my sister-in-law, hidden in Poland from the age of two until the war came to an end and she was reunited in the UK with her father. My husband’s mother and her family survived in Poland between 1939 and 1945 by ducking and diving and assuming non-Jewish noms de guerre. For our family, this is the most terrible, up close and personal reminder of what happens when a society forgets why the rule of law matters.
In the 1940s, my husband’s parents arrived in the UK from Poland as refugees from the Nazis. I never met his father, who had died years earlier, but I knew and loved his mother. This is not my story to tell, it is my husband’s, but there is one reason why I wanted to speak of it today. His grandparents, who survived the Nazis but were then trapped in Poland by the Soviet regime, had got through the war by selling a few diamonds, which was all they had managed to salvage of their earlier comfortable life. After the war, they came across a remaining diamond ring, which they then smuggled out of Poland by baking it into a cake and sending it to my mother-in-law, who by now was living in Burnley, Lancashire. This bit of the story my husband cannot illustrate, but I can. This is the ring. I wear it every Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am wearing it today because it conveys this simple message: they survived. They are still standing, right here in the UK House of Lords. So, I too say: never forget; never again.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Well, my Lords, I have been looking forward greatly to today’s maiden speeches—without trepidation in the case of the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, on his maiden speech, and I look forward to that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans; they will bring much to your Lordships’ House. But at this point, I have the heartfelt—I use the word deliberately—honour of thanking my noble kinswoman for her remarkable speech. I had to check with the clerks what the right appellation was. She demonstrated her eloquence, her wit, her determination and her critical faculty, of which I have some experience, all of which will make her a valued Member of your Lordships’ House. Her contributions on many subjects, I think—declaring my interests firmly—will be welcome, especially those founded upon her unusual and profound knowledge of and contribution to our criminal justice system. I should add that she brought me closer, much closer than I had ever been before, to my Jewish heritage, and I thank her for that.
I turn now directly to the subject of the debate. I say that the Shoah, the Holocaust, was the event of the most unnatural scale and horror in the history of humanity. It brought the end of six million lives, some my own close relatives: people who had no interest in politics, no interest in government, no interest in how their country, Poland, was ruled.
I was denied meeting one pair of grandparents because they were murdered. My half-sister’s mother died in Auschwitz, after spending three years there. On her death certificate it says typhoid, but we know that she became ill and was shot against a pole outside a shed in Auschwitz. Visiting there—I will never do it again, because I do not think I could take it—was an extraordinary experience for me.
In my view, what happened to those people has left an indelible mark on the living. I want to talk a little—nobody has yet—about what is generally referred to as survivor’s guilt. It is not a good description of what it is, but I cannot do better at a moment like this.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen the remarkable BBC series, “The Last Musician of Auschwitz”. It is required viewing. It tells the story of brilliant musicians, among the best in the world, who faced the moral dilemma of whether they should play music while others in the camps were marching to their deaths as slave labourers. What happened is that survival won the debate, and that is what survivor’s guilt is about: survival often wins the debate and they were right to do what they did, but it did not go away after they had done it.
I have seen it at close quarters. All my father’s family died of murder, except my beloved sister—my half-sister, in fact—who is now a lovely old lady living in a nursing home. She is spared, by dementia, from the memories of her experience as a hidden child. Before she became ill, she wrote a remarkable book, published by Bloomsbury Publishing, about what she remembered of her childhood between the ages of two and seven when she was hidden in Poland. She was hidden by an audacious young woman called Frederika, who was a distant cousin. She ensured that the child, my half-sister Renata, survived the war. After the war, that woman brought Renata to her father, who had been a solider in England—a medical officer. In a glorious flash, he and Frederika had a speedy romance. They married and I am their son.
Until I was 10 years old, I knew nothing about that background. My parents converted to Christianity while my father was a general practitioner in Burnley. My mother walked into Manchester Cathedral and demanded to see the bishop, and that is how that happened. I was not told until I was 10 years old that Renata, by then 20, was not my full sister. As it was put to me, she “had another mummy”. It bonded us for the rest of our lives and still does, but it was an extraordinary early example of what survivor’s guilt is all about.
Another example from my family is my cousin, Willy Verkauf. He left Poland when he was 17, just before the war. He went to Israel, came to Europe and became an art dealer in Basel. How did he express his survivor’s guilt? He discovered a painter called André Verlon, who you will see referred to in books about paintings of the Holocaust. André Verlon became a reputed Holocaust painter and artist. The survivor’s guilt is that André Verlon and my cousin Willy Verkauf were the same person: he invented an alter ego through which he could express his earlier experiences and the loss of his family in the Holocaust. I am proud to own two of André Verlon’s works, which I keep at home.
Then there is my cousin Ewa, who came for lunch with me in this place. She looked at me as though it were completely bizarre that we were having lunch here, that I had no business to be here and asked, “What on earth is going on?” We have all had these sorts of experiences; I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, nodding.
Ewa told me that she was in a concentration camp with her mother and her baby. The baby died and she helped her mother to commit suicide. One day, she was sitting in a room with a number of women in the concentration camp and a Nazi guard came in. He took a 13 year-old girl by the hair and dragged her out of the room. A few minutes later, the girl returned, weeping, saying, “He raped me, he raped me”. A few minutes later still, the guard came back into the room, stood the girl up against the wall in front of all the other women in the room and shot her dead in the back of the head.
My cousin Ewa had real survivor’s guilt, so much so that she married an American and had two fine sons, and did not tell them until she had nearly died that they had had a brother or sister who died in a concentration camp. People have to live with these experiences.
The importance of memorialising the Holocaust is that we must make sure that the rest of society lives with these experiences. The wonderful work of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I pay great tribute to him; I have watched him in Parliament for more decades than I would care to mention, because we are all getting older now—demonstrates that it is very important to educate so that people know that the Holocaust not only really happened but was the worst event in history.
My real point is that Holocaust Memorial Day is not merely a day in which we remember, but it is very much part of the present. We who carry the sort of history that I have appreciate the huge public support that comes through Holocaust Memorial Day. The day stands as a memorial and a reckoning for all of us who celebrate the innocence of our grandparents and other close relatives and commemorate their death. It is also for those of us who suffer the benefit of survival, as my parents and my cousins did and as I do to a lesser extent in coming to terms with the past, of which I knew nothing until I was 10 years old.
I could say much more, but for now it is enough that, in a debate such as this, I say about the past that we have the opportunity to learn important lessons for the future.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to contribute to this vital debate—a debate in which the House is rightly able to speak with one voice. It is particularly an honour to follow the long list of excellent contributions that we have heard. I welcome and look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who will be the next speaker. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on their excellent maiden speeches. I am glad that I was able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rather than precede him—I would have risked matrimonial disharmony if I had come between husband and wife. I look forward to hearing the further contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who have made such an excellent start.
The Nazis inflicted great atrocities across a wide range of communities, many of which have already been mentioned today. It is right that we acknowledge and remember all of those. Evil is evil, but it is particularly true that the Holocaust, the infliction of an attempt to wipe out the entire Jewish community off the face of the earth, stands alone as the greatest act of evil in the history of mankind. The murder of 6 million Jews—it is Jews, not just people—is something that we must commemorate at all costs.
When we mention the 6 million people, it is sometimes difficult for us all to get our heads around what that means in practice. Stalin once said that the death of a single person is a tragedy; the death of 1 million people is a statistic. We cannot afford the deaths of the 6 million Jewish people in the Holocaust simply to become a statistic. We should always remember that behind each one of those 6 million is an individual life and story: a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife or friend.
If there were no other reason than simply to commemorate the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and their families, that would be reason enough to hold the annual Holocaust Memorial Day. However, sadly, there are other reasons that also compel us, rightly, to keep this uppermost in our mind.
First, it is clear that humanity has not learned the lessons of the atrocities of the Holocaust. Since 1945, a range of genocides—a word that is sometimes overused and perhaps wrongly used—have clearly been inflicted throughout the world, from Cambodia to Rwanda, and from Darfur to Bosnia. Therefore, ensuring that we learn the lessons of history is critical to ensure that it does not repeat itself.
Secondly, and even within this country itself, it is clear that anti-Semitism did not simply begin with the Holocaust—and, even more sadly, that it did not end with the Holocaust. The last 18 months in particular have seen a heightening of anti-Semitic behaviour across the United Kingdom. We have seen it in our streets, in our schools and across our community as a whole, with the terrible statistic that 2024 had the second-highest number of anti-Semitic attacks in recorded history.
I was struck by a speech that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, gave in this House some time ago. He contrasted his greater concern for his young daughter, who lived in London, whenever she would go into the city on a Friday or Saturday night to socialise, with that for his son, who served with the Israel Defense Forces. That, for many Jewish people, is an all too commonplace experience in our society. The poison and cancer of anti-Semitism is still with us, which is why we need to ensure that we constantly confront it and do everything in our power to eradicate it.
Thirdly, we need to understand and know the Holocaust to ensure that we learn the lessons from it and are vigilant to make sure that it does not happen again. There is a dangerous and historically mistaken belief that the Holocaust was a one-off terror perpetrated by a few evil fanatics at the top of the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The Holocaust was the most extreme example, but it was built upon centuries of anti-Semitism across Europe. While we think of it as a terror, what is perhaps most chilling about the Holocaust were the efforts made by the Nazi regime to make everything appear as ordinary and normal as possible. That was done for the purposes of trying to make sure that the Jewish victims of the Holocaust went to their death as compliantly as possible. To the extent to which the fictions were created of, for example, the showers in the concentration camps, they were not purely built on terror but on trying to create a sense of ordinariness and a belief that nothing unusual was happening.
Fourthly, it was not just the actions of a handful of people; the Holocaust was brought about by both the active participation, and often the acquiescence, of tens of thousands, if not millions, of people who helped facilitate it. They were people who, in other walks of life, we would simply regard as being ordinary and unremarkable. That is why it is wrong for us to see this as some one-off event; that drags us into a place of complacency, in which we believe that the conditions of the Holocaust could never happen again.
While acknowledging the evils perpetrated by so many during the Holocaust, it is also appropriate that we acknowledge the bravery and dedication of many other people in Europe during that decade or so. Many people acted with bravery and risked their own lives in sheltering and protecting members of the Jewish community and others, often directly at the expense of their lives. This took place in the UK as well. I am very proud that, in my constituency—the village of Millisle—there was a centre which served as a refuge for Jewish people directly before and after the war. It helped to look after some of the children from the Kindertransport and it became a home shortly after the war to some of those who had survived Auschwitz. That bond with the past has been built upon in Millisle. Millisle Primary, the local primary school, has recently opened a Holocaust memorial garden. That is a living way in which the current generation can acknowledge what has happened in the past.
Finally, I suspect most noble Lords have had the great honour and privilege—like I have—of meeting Holocaust survivors and listening to the very moving and telling first-hand testimony of those survivors. With the passage of time, the number of survivors is becoming less and less. Perhaps, in another five or 10 years there will not be the opportunity for anyone to receive first-hand testimony. This is why it is important that the mantle passes to the rest of us to carry on that critical message. The work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust and the ambassadors of Lessons from Auschwitz is no better exemplified than by the actions of our sovereign, who gave a truly remarkable example to the rest of us this year by becoming the first member of the British Royal Family to visit Auschwitz. That is the leadership example we need to pursue.
Peter Robinson, a former leader of mine, once described politics quite accurately as a never-ending relay race. For concentration camp survivors, their race as individuals on this earth is nearly run. It is up to all of us—the post-war generation—to now grab hold of the baton and to carry on the message of the critical nature of commemoration of the Holocaust and to ensure that—not simply in words, but in deeds—we fulfil the promise of “never again”.
Lord Evans of Sealand (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is humbling—and slightly daunting—to follow such moving and important contributions, particularly from my noble friends Lord Katz and Lady Levitt. I will do my best. I would like to do three things in this speech: give some thanks, briefly tell the story of why I am here, and contribute to this debate.
First, I thank my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for introducing me; the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her brilliant leadership and support; and the doorkeepers and all the Lords staff who have been a credit to this House and an enormous help to me. With all these maiden speeches, I hope they feel cherished—they certainly deserve to.
Of course, I thank my noble friends, but I have also been made to feel so welcome right across the House. After three short weeks, it is clear to me that this House is an extraordinary place. It certainly has its foibles and it is not perfect. But the quality of expertise, scrutiny and debate is world-class. Dig under the partisan froth, which occasionally bubbles up even here, something terribly important is happening: the foundation of so much of what we have as a nation. It is democracy at work.
Why am I here? It started with my parents, both working class; their values were family, fairness, decency and hard work. Together, they were greater than the sum of their parts, and they worked so hard to give my brother Rob and I the start in life that everybody should have: safe, secure and loving.
So many people have helped and encouraged me but I will pick out just three: Dennis Wiseman, my English teacher at St Olave’s school, saw something in me that I did not see in myself; my friend and mentor Len Collinson, who told me I knew nothing about business and then dedicated so much of his time to teach me so much; and the exceptional Baroness Margaret McDonagh of this House, sadly no longer with us.
Noble Lords will all have their own stories about what got them into politics. Over the years, I have worked with some brilliant people from all mainstream parties, all wanting to change places and lives for the better but disagreeing on exactly how—which is what democracy is about. You cannot have democracy without political parties, and the disrespect in which they are held by too many is a great jeopardy for us.
I can remember the day I first got involved in politics like it was yesterday. It was 12 May 1979. Margaret Thatcher had just been elected in a landslide, but it was not that election that called me to action. I was meeting my brother Rob in our local high street. I was late and, as I approached, I saw him being bullied, mocked and taunted by a group of teenagers. Rob has a learning disability. I sorted those kids out—trust me, I did—but on the bus on the way home, I realised that I would not always be there for him. I needed to do something to make the place better, safer and kinder. Why did those kids think it was right to bully and mock, whereas similar kids from our street were kind, generous and inclusive to him? I wanted a country that brings out the best in people and discourages the worst. I joined the Labour Party that day.
I am fortunate, though, to have three families: my own—my wife, brother and daughter; the Labour Party; and, thanks to the only unkind thing my father ever did, imposing on me the life sentence of supporting Chester Football Club, I have Chester Football Club. All three have the power to test me, but I am blessed to have them.
Hatred in politics was alive and well when I was cutting my political teeth in the 1980s, with the National Front on the rise. In 1988, I visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where many of the mechanics of the Holocaust were developed before implementation in the larger camps. It was a profound experience which lives with me today: the mundane, everyday things in the well-preserved huts; living quarters, not statistics.
Those who perpetrated the atrocities were people as well. As Steven Pinker has said:
“We have to be prepared … to see that evildoers always think they are acting morally”.
Yesterday, in advance of going on a delegation to Israel next week, I witnessed raw footage collected by the IDF of the 7 October atrocities, which are still happening today. Were they monsters? Maybe, but they were also people like us, which is difficult for us to concede. Despite technological, economic and social advances, we are still constantly rocked and astonished as atrocities are committed today. It is too easy to demonise perpetrators as simply evil.
In 2006, 12 British National Party councillors were elected in Barking and Dagenham. Rapid change, poverty and deindustrialisation all played a part, but political parties, including my own, were also culpable. I am proud of the work I did alongside many others, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, to regain the confidence of residents in mainstream politics there.
I became general secretary of the Labour Party in 2020. I was alarmed to find anti-Semitism alive and well in my own family, the Labour Party. My friend, Dame Louise Ellman, who suffered terrible anti-Semitic abuse, once said to me, “Only now can I really fully understand how ordinary people can do terrible things”. That chilled me. This was not the 1940s in another country; this was England in the 21st century, within a progressive political party. It was a personal pleasure to welcome Louise back into Labour Party membership in 2021.
Keir Starmer provided first-class leadership, and it fell to me as general secretary to root out anti-Semitism. It was not easy. I witnessed the certainty of the self-righteous, and indestructible narratives that resisted challenge and even truth, but I was ably assisted by so many in that task, including my noble friend Lady Ramsey, who led the transformation of our complaints process and did so much to restore the battered confidence of Jewish stakeholders. My noble friend Lord Katz provided exemplary leadership, and the Jewish Labour Movement was courageous and resilient. Other Jewish leaders trusted us when they could have been forgiven for not doing so. It was tough but, together, we changed the Labour Party for good.
However, there can be no complacency. There is still a toxicity in our politics, and, sadly, it is growing. I saw it in the recent general election all too clearly. It is easy to descend to the lowest and to proffer simple solutions to complex problems. My fundamental belief remains that, with the right environment, support and nurture, the overwhelming majority share the values my parents taught me: generosity, kindness and love.
The work done in your Lordships’ House is noble in the best sense of the word, but it could be too easy for us to become cocooned in this House and the other place against the harsh political reality. There has never been more volatility, or less affinity with mainstream parties. This is a real danger. Very little in politics is inevitable, but a dysfunctional democracy is certainly a precondition for the worst to prevail.
As my noble friend Lord Dubs, who knows more about this than most of us, said, we must never be bystanders to hatred. That can be difficult, but thanks to the support of so many, I was able not to be a bystander to hatred in that high street with my brother in 1979, to the BNP in Barking and Dagenham, or to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. It is up to us to spot and stop the small acts of hatred wherever we find them, before they become the norm, before they burgeon with the accelerator of social media, and before it is too late.
David Baddiel has said that anti-Semitism is unique in its ability to shapeshift. It exists in both the far right and the far left, in conspiracies, in populism and even among those who claim to fight racism. No party represented here is immune. I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships’ House, but we need to do more. We are the doorkeepers of our democracy. If we allow democracy to fray and decay—and it is doing exactly that—on our watch, we could open the door again to the kinds of atrocities we are marking today. We must simply never let it happen.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand and to be the first to congratulate him on an inspiring maiden speech. I have known the noble Lord for many years and can confirm that he is definitely no bystander. He has always been a man of action—and I do not include his support for that peculiar football team, Chester—whether in support of his brother on the high street, or in taking on the BNP in east London and, regrettably for me, the anti-Semites in the Labour Party when he became general secretary in 2020. He will be a great asset to your Lordships’ House.
I was so pleased to be able to support his efforts when he was general secretary, under the leadership of the now Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to tackle the scourge of anti-Semitism in our party, which, as we heard from my noble friend, is one of his three families. The need to do the work that we did, hand in hand with my noble friends Lord Katz and Lady Anderson, and so many others, is proof, if ever any were needed, that marking Holocaust Memorial Day is more important now than ever. I bear in mind the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on this subject.
We must always be vigilant and determined men and women of action. That is what I see right across this House. I saw it when I was working for the Labour Party in helping to lead its response to the damning report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. I saw it then in the calm and assured roles that the late lamented Lord Kerslake and the wonderful noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, played in overseeing the recruitment of the independent complaint adjudicators to ensure that anti-Semitism—indeed, all acts of discrimination—could be rooted out.
I also saw that vigilance and determination in the unwavering support and oversight of the work by my noble friends Lady Hodge, Lady Royall and Lady Lawrence, alongside Jewish communal stakeholders, including—I am very anxious about leaving out some names—the then president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, the current president, Phil Rosenberg, the wonderful Adrian Cohen and the Jewish Leadership Council, the Jewish Labour Movement, which was absolutely central, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the fantastic Community Security Trust, and those JLM members who were so fundamental, Peter Mason and Adam Langleben, among others. I have seen it too since having the honour of joining your Lordships’ House, including in the powerful maiden speeches from my noble friends Lord Katz and Lady Levitt.
I have also been inspired by the hugely impressive ways in which the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, brings the horrors of the Holocaust to life in his writings for today’s generations by sharing his family’s terrible testimony regarding, among other things, Bergen-Belsen. I am inspired by the wisdom and generosity of spirit of my noble friend Lord Dubs and by hearing of his remarkable experiences of the Kindertransport, and from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, speaking of his family’s horrific experiences. I found listening to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deeply moving, as has been other testimony in the House today.
It was only after joining your Lordships’ House that I learned, from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that I had been inspired by another child refugee from the Holocaust many years ago. Without me even realising it at the time, his father was my head teacher at secondary school. I only learned of Mr Austin’s experience of the Nazis decades after being taught by him and his wife—the noble Lord’s mother—I assume because back then people did not really talk about it, at least not outside their families.
Indeed, it was from my own family that I learned about the horrors of the Holocaust. When I was growing up, my father told me of his time in the Westminster Dragoons, a tank regiment which landed on Sword beach on D-day. He then drove, with his comrades, his flail tank across northern France and eventually found himself part of the liberating forces at Bergen-Belsen. My dad never forgot what he saw there. I am not going to talk about that because others have spoken about those horrors so eloquently and with even more experience than I have of hearing about it. He said that I should never forget what he told me about and what he had seen. He wanted his children to know, to remember and to speak of it—as I am doing today in his honour. He worried even then, when we were children growing up and as teenagers, that some people were denying that it had ever happened and forgetting about it. By continuing to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, as all noble Lords have done so eloquently today, we can and must make sure that no one ever forgets.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great honour to hear three such interesting and heartwarming maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. It is also a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay.
Today we are all here gathered in remembrance. The speeches we have heard have been heartbreaking and full of sadness on many occasions, which has moved many of us. Eighty years ago, the world bore witness to the liberation of Auschwitz—a name etched in infamy for its wickedness, a place where a million souls perished. But we must be clear: Auschwitz was not an anomaly, nor was it the whole story. It was but one in a network of extermination camps which sought to systematically eradicate 6 million Jews in Europe. We must resist the temptation to speak of the Holocaust as a horrific event that took place during the Second World War. To do so would be to diminish the full scale of atrocity which spanned nations, years, and generations of suffering.
Although today is a day of reflection, it must also be a day of reckoning, because the hard truth is this: anti-Semitism did not die with the fall of the Third Reich. It was not buried in the rubble of Berlin, nor was it erased by the words “never again”. It persists, it is alive, and it is growing. We have all heard that the Community Security Trust documented the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in a six-month period. It is no wonder that the CST also uncovered that merely one-third of British Jews believe they have a future in this country and that a staggering 50% have considered leaving altogether. It is truly anathema to me that in the UK—a nation that has been a beacon of refuge and opportunity for Jewish people—there are those who fear for their safety, their children’s futures, and their very place in society. How can this be? How did we arrive at a moment where British Jews, who have contributed so much to our national life, feel unwelcome in their own country? Crucially, what will we do about it?
We rightly place great importance on the memorialisation of the Holocaust. It is an opportunity to educate, to remember, and to honour those whose lives were stolen, but remembrance alone is not enough if it comes at the expense of acting against contemporary anti-Semitism. What is the point of solemn words and candlelit vigils if we fail to confront the anti-Semitism of today? I put it to the House that each Holocaust Memorial Day should be a day not just of reflection but of renewed commitment to tackling contemporary anti-Semitism in all its forms. This commitment must be explicit: annual targets, clear objectives and unwavering political will. Without this, the fight against anti-Semitism will continue to be overlooked, sidelined and deprioritised on the political agenda.
Let us be honest: the pervasive nature of this problem indicates that we are beyond easy solutions. It cannot be resolved overnight, but that must not deter us. We need a patient, sustained effort—an approach that acknowledges the scale of the issue while refusing to accept it as inevitable. We have skirted around this subject for too long; it is time to take it seriously and, as we do so, we must ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day remains firmly rooted in the historic reality of what happened. We remember all victims of hatred, but let us not shy away from the fact that the Holocaust was first and foremost the attempted extermination of the Jewish people. This is not a mere historical detail; it is the very essence of why this day exists. To obscure or generalise this fact is not only a disservice to the past but a dangerous mistake for the future. Making the historical and contemporary link both honours the memory of those murdered and is the best bulwark against history repeating itself. The Holocaust was not inevitable; it was the result of unchecked hatred, institutional complicity, and the silence of too many for too long. That is why we must act now.
Today, as we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, let us also liberate ourselves from complacency. Let us not merely remember; let us resolve. Let us not only mourn; let us act. Let us ensure that when we say “never again”, it is not merely a phrase but a reality that we strive towards. I urge my esteemed colleagues to stand firm against anti-Semitism, to make Holocaust Memorial Day a moment of real commitment and to ensure that British Jewish people can live in this country with the same security, dignity and confidence as any other citizen.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I want to share a few thoughts on the question of the Holocaust memorial. However, before we talk about it, we need to ask: why do we want to remember the Holocaust? What do we wish to remember? What is our assessment of it? These are the questions that this debate was and is expected to answer.
Is the Holocaust in some sense unique in human history, or have there not been cases of collective killings and mass suffering? The first thing therefore to ask is: what is the specificity, the uniqueness, of the Holocaust? I suggest that it is not merely a question of a large number of people being killed—6 million, 4 million or whatever. What is unique about it are the following four things, and never before or after have these four things come together in the way that they did in the 1940s. First, the Holocaust was articulated through the agency of the state. It was not a question of people going berserk and killing each other, or ethnic tribes springing upon each other; it worked through the state, systematically aiming at particular groups and wanting to eliminate them.
Secondly, the state did it because it was guided by a particular ideology, the ideology of racism—the Aryan race, the pure race, the white race. There are different races, and particular races must be eliminated. Thirdly, race acts as a navigator. It helps you to identify groups that you should get rid of. Fourthly, when you do get rid of them, theirs is not an ordinary death. It is a death that is bureaucratised and treated simply as an impersonal event in the life of the state.
Given those four elements—using the state and mobilising its resources, being based on a particular ideology, using that ideology to identify particular groups and then mobilising the state to kill people whom you have identified as undesirable—the question is often asked in many circles: why are you taking the Holocaust as in some sense unique? Why not see it as simply representative of other kinds of suffering? Slavery, for example, has been a long-lasting feature of human life. Why do we not memorialise slavery? Likewise indentured labour or, if we are considering genocide cases, there have been other genocides in history. Why are we concentrating on the Holocaust?
I think I have already answered that question, but I suggest that the kind of suffering involved in the Holocaust was unique for the following reasons. In the case of slavery, there is human contact; the state is not involved. Death comes rarely and when it does it is generally incidental and not planned. There is a human relationship between the slave owner and the slave. A kind of humanity is there in almost all forms of suffering, except when you come to the Holocaust, where humanity disappears and the individual is not just dehumanised; he is “inhumanised”. The language used is the language relevant to animals—cockroaches, worms and so on. In no accounts of suffering of any kind that I have read or heard about have I seen human beings referred to in that inhuman way. This phenomenon of “inhumanisation” is very peculiar to the Holocaust.
If that is so—and I hope this is so—the questions that we have asked about other forms of suffering, and the lessons we have learned, cannot be applied to the Holocaust. For example, in the common attempt to understand why the Holocaust occurred, people say, “Well, the Nazis hated Jews”. It is not as simple as that because there were Nazis who did not hate Jews; they had Jews as friends or as mistresses. Others have said that they did not just hate Jews; they hated human beings as a whole and were misanthropes. That is not true either, because they had good friends. Or it is said that they were evil, wicked persons. That is not quite right either because the “evil” they display is shallow and superficial. It is not born out of the deep layers of the human soul.
That leaves us puzzled. How do we explain the behaviour of a man who has dogs, loves animals, has friends and a mother and a father going to the concentration camp and knocking off a few people and returning home as if nothing has happened? It is this that needs to be understood. In order to be understood, it is this that needs to be questioned. What kinds of human beings are attracted to this or turn into machines of death? That cannot be answered if you look at the ordinary forms of killing. If you were to look at the psychological theory that it developed from ordinary forms of killing and apply it automatically to the Holocaust, it simply would not work.
To these simple questions—why and how—what answer would you give? Hannah Arendt had to invent a new concept: the banality of evil. She had made a massive study of concentration camps and ultimately came to the conclusion that these people were shallow. There was nothing there. You expect wicked people to have depths of an evil kind, but there was no such thing. My suggestion is simply that we have not even started learning lessons from the Holocaust. If these questions remain unanswered, what are we learning from the Holocaust memorials being set up all over the world?
I want therefore to end with a very simple conclusion. There are many others that follow from this. When we say, for example, the Holocaust is evil, we are making a moral judgment on it. It is evil, yes, but what else? Is that enough for us as a lesson to learn? Here I suggest that in the case of the Holocaust and lessons we can learn, we need to be asking certain questions which are not asked in relation to other forms of suffering. Let me take a simple example, with just one minute left.
We judge it, as in all our discussion today, as being in terms of the Jewish people. Is the Holocaust entirely the moral property of the Jewish people? Is it not an indictment of the entirety of mankind and should it not be seen as a human problem, which addresses all human beings anywhere and not just Jews? Of course, Jews were the primary and intended targets, but so were lots of Poles and others. That is one point.
The other question is of a slightly different nature. The Holocaust has happened, but what are the moral consequences? Does this mean that the Holocaust was the price Jews had to pay to win the State of Israel? How glibly we slip into a certain way of thinking and certainly of talking; “Look, they have suffered so much and therefore the Jewish people have a right to Israel” or “Whatever they do is forgiven”. In that case, we do injustice to other people—namely the Arabs and the Palestinians. The simple thing is that we have a lot to learn, and we have not yet started learning it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer)
Order. I apologise to the noble Lord, but can I ask him to come to the end of his remarks now please?
Lord Parekh (Lab)
These are the lessons we need to learn, and I hope that we will start learning them fast.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, who sadly is not able to be in his place today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, reminded us just a few minutes ago in her excellent speech, Ian is the son of a Holocaust survivor. It was he who helped me understand the significance of this day, long before either he or myself were Members of your Lordships’ House.
Unlike my present diocese of Manchester, Dudley, where I was then the bishop and the noble Lord, Lord Austin, was an MP, did not have a very large Jewish population. Nevertheless, at his instigation, every year we sent two young people from Dudley College of Technology to Auschwitz. They reported back to our annual Holocaust Memorial Day event that was held in the college, where they told very moving stories of what they had seen and how it had made them feel. Their witness, alongside the testimony of Holocaust survivors, helped inspire young people who were born almost half a century after the Holocaust to understand why we today must be constantly on the vigil against those voices that seek to deny the common and equal humanity and dignity of every single human being. Those who denigrate, despise and ultimately seek to destroy those whom I, as a Christian, will always declare as being created in the very image of God.
I now live in Salford, in the midst of the largest Jewish community outside of London. The boundary of the eruv, which permits many of my Jewish neighbours to undertake tasks such as pushing wheelchairs and prams on the sabbath and other holy days, is my garden wall.
This year, I have been delighted to see the success of the Holocaust Memorial Day schools exhibition held in Manchester Cathedral. It features the work of Church of England primary schools across the whole of Greater Manchester from many culturally, racially and religiously diverse communities. The children responded to key themes of the Holocaust in a number of ways. Some of them created origami paper cranes as prayers for peace; others reflected on Pavel Friedman’s poem, The Butterfly, which was actually written in a concentration camp. There was a re-creation of the pile of children’s shoes from the children who lost their lives at Auschwitz—that was very difficult to look at—and a collection of human portraits from many different cultures to celebrate our differences.
Meanwhile, local authority Holocaust Memorial Day events in Greater Manchester, including one that I attended in Manchester Town Hall, had local speakers who were Holocaust survivors or from their families. Respect was shown to them at these events by members of all our main faith communities: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jain. In my role as convenor of the Greater Manchester faith leaders, I have the privilege of leading representatives of all our major faiths. We are good friends and good neighbours.
The multifaith Challenging Hate Forum, which is hosted by my cathedral, undertook its own visit to Auschwitz, led jointly by my dean and Rabbi Warren Elf. My wife was part of that trip in March 2019. We also have vibrant bilateral groups, such as our Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester, where relationships that are forged and sustained over many years prove so vital when we find ourselves in tense times. I am privileged to work closely with the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region, and to use my voice here in your Lordships’ House to raise concerns that it and other faith communities have first prompted me about.
The Church of England teaching document, God’s Unfailing Word, which was published in 2019, speaks of attitudes towards Judaism over many centuries as providing,
“a fertile seed-bed for murderous antisemitism”,
and of the need for Christians to repent of the “sins of the past” towards our Jewish neighbours. It notes the part played by flawed Christian theology in promoting negative stereotypes of Jewish people.
I am grateful to other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lichfield, for reminding us that anti-Semitism did not arise in the 1930s but was nurtured and grown over the preceding two millennia. There can be no overlap between the truth of our witness to Christ, which it is the task of theology to articulate, and the darkness of anti-Semitism. We have a duty as Christians to be alert to the continuation of such stereotyping and to resist it. My right reverend friend was a member of the group that wrote this document, though I note he was too modest to refer to that in his own speech earlier.
Remembering the Holocaust serves as a bulwark against the ever-present forces across the world that seek to resurrect vile, violent and murderous anti-Semitism or to perpetrate fresh genocides against other targeted groups. This year marks 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre, when more than 8,000—mainly men and boys—were killed in just a few days by the Serb forces. I am proud that, in Manchester, we—again together, as all our faiths and others—commemorate Srebrenica Memorial Day each year.
In Britain, we take pride—I take pride—in our pluralistic society, one where people are free to practise their religion and express their identity and where they should be able to live without fear of persecution. But we must never take those freedoms for granted. They are the product of a long history of struggle and sacrifice. Yet, as other noble Lords have said, they remain under attack—even in the UK, even today. We must make sure that atrocities such as the Holocaust never happen again. We must speak up and act up when anti-Semitism, racism or xenophobia happen.
As a schoolboy in Manchester, I studied alongside many fellow pupils who were Jewish. Most of them would have lost family members in the Holocaust. Simply being boys together—we did not have girls in those days in my school, and it still does not—taught me that we were one humanity under the skin. Indeed, the only practical difference between being Jewish or gentile seemed to be that my Jewish friends got to go home a lesson early on winter Friday afternoons.
As others have said, with each anniversary, the memories of the Holocaust slip away from living memory. If we are to hold firm against the evils of fascism and other extreme ideologies—as indeed we must—as each generation of survivors passes on, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the past. Today’s debate plays a vital part in enabling that, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley—a good friend, who does so much excellent work to promote strong relationships between different faiths and communities, and who spoke so strongly and movingly in opening our debate today—for giving us this opportunity to build “For a better future”, to quote the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and a particular pleasure to speak in a debate where we have heard three varied, enjoyable, interesting and informative maiden speeches.
I was 14 at the end of the war. I was at boarding school in Winchester, and my memory tells me that we did not know about Auschwitz. However, we were told about Belsen, and noble Lords will all know, I am sure, why Belsen came into the knowledge of the general public in this country, as the first of the camps that we really knew about. We learned about the camps in stages, and we learned about what had been happening in stages: arbitrary imprisonment, forced labour, cruelty, neglect, disease, starvation and industrialised murder.
This was so far beyond our 14 year-old experience, knowledge and imagination. It was a shattering blow to our experience of the war. After all, we had been through a period when it seemed that we were going to lose the war—and then we looked at this and what we were supposed to understand. At evening prayers, who ever took them faced a very troubled congregation.
Then, we thought to ourselves, “How could people be found to run such a system—who would be the guards, bookkeepers, managers and commandants?” We found it very difficult to cope with that. Then there were the misfortunes, the betrayals and the widespread collaboration—all these aspects came out, stage by stage. Then we got to hear about the text of the final solution. Again, that was quite beyond our comprehension. All we could conclude was that it was unattainable and massively evil.
Time goes by and our nature is such that we have to learn to cope. At that time, we did not have the 6 million label. We came to cope by somehow thinking that it was individuals to whom these things had happened. We thought of it as a whole series of individual tragedies and the effect they had had upon their close families and relations. This is probably still the way I think about the Holocaust—as a massive list of individual stories.
Eighty years later, there are two other ways in which we might usefully accept the challenge of thinking about the Holocaust. How did Europe come to create the conditions where the Holocaust was mounted, from the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires through Bismarck and competitive rearmament to the First World War, Versailles and the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler, the Second World War and the final solution? I believe that, although we have looked in some detail at that story—that long journey—it merits being looked at in ever more detail to try to come to some resolution about how this could have happened. Whatever one thinks about the Holocaust, it was one outcome of that long journey.
There is a second journey about which we need to think very carefully, and that is what has happened since 1945. During my national service, some of my colleagues had come recently from Palestine, which was still briefly in its mandate condition before the creation of Israel. They told pretty wild, difficult and dangerous stories of the Stern Gang and the PLA. It behoves us to consider what part the Holocaust has played in geopolitical outcomes since 1945 and, indeed, up to today. What part does that appalling event play in the way in which we think about where we are now and where we are going? Again, I feel that the study of and research about this are extremely important.
To sum up, we do our best in our efforts to cope with what is happening to us and around us. In coping, we have more than enough to think about, to study, to research and to remember.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, when the Nazis came to power in 1933, my father was dismissed from his job as a medical researcher because he was a Jew, and he made his way to this country, where he was taken in, made his home, raised a family and became a distinguished scientist. Historically, this is a reminder that although—or perhaps because—the Holocaust originated in Germany, many German Jews had time to leave before the final solution was initiated, whereas the Jews in subsequently Nazi-occupied countries did not have that opportunity, with the disastrous consequences that we all know and that have been described in a number of speeches today.
Personally, my father’s reception in this country has made me for ever grateful to the United Kingdom and made me, for a while, very suspicious of Germany, a suspicion reinforced by the fact that a number of members of my mother’s family died in concentration camps. However, subsequent experiences, particularly my contact with German judges, have given me two insights.
The first is respect for the way in which Germans have come to terms with what happened and have tried to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. Let us hope that the rise of the AfD does not represent a signal of retreat from that.
The second is a realisation that while it was, as has been said more than once today, unique in history, the Holocaust could have happened anywhere. We delude ourselves if we think that lessons can be learned so that nothing like it will happen again. I am afraid that history shows us that racial prejudice, racially motivated violence and even—fortunately, only rarely—genocide have been features of human existence as far back as records go, and that anti-Semitism has been prevalent, sadly, for more than 2,000 years.
Of course, that is not to say that everyone is racially prejudiced or anti-Semitic, or has a predisposition to racial violence, let alone to committing genocide. But one has only to read about how many otherwise apparently decent German soldiers were prepared to massacre helpless Jewish women and children simply because they were ordered to do so by their officers to realise how skin-deep civilisation is, at least in extreme circumstances, a point eloquently made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
An important component of combating such tendencies in any country is the rule of law, coupled with strong, democratic institutions—a point made by the most recent winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics, who showed that the quality of life in countries with those features significantly outperformed the quality of life in countries which lacked them. It is noteworthy how democracy, the constitution and the courts in Germany all crumbled very quickly in the face of ruthless Nazi aggression, thereby setting Germany on course for the Holocaust. The rise of Hitler shows that democracy is not enough: the Nazis came to power through the ballot box. Had there been humane laws enforced by an independent judiciary, I suggest that the story would have been very different.
Of course, the judges cannot stand on their own, even when supported by advocates as talented as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, whom I congratulate on her maiden speech. They need to have an embedded culture that genuinely believes in respect for all people and genuinely supports the rule of law. Without that, the road to perdition beckons.
As my noble friend Lady Ludford reminded us, the price of liberty—and, I would add, the price of a decent society—is eternal vigilance. On that score, we are in danger of drifting into choppy waters. I am struck by how ignorant and uncaring most people in this country are about our constitutional arrangements, the rule of law, the role of the courts and why it matters. Even those at the top of our constitutional tree, in what we coyly refer to as “the other place”, are often remarkably and insouciantly ignorant about such issues. Such ignorance helps breed prejudice, and prejudice, if unchallenged, metastasises into persecution, and sometimes something worse than persecution.
Education and research are therefore key. It is through education that we seek to ensure that future generations are encouraged and enabled to recognise and combat racism in general, and anti-Semitism in particular. It seems to me essential that young people are both taught to disavow racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance and educated about our constitutional system and the rule of law.
Some 10 years ago, I would have said that this country had, by international standards, a reasonably good record on anti-Semitism. Recent events, which were well described by the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand, in their excellent maiden speeches, show that things have deteriorated, but that people are doing their best to reverse this disturbing development. They deserve our support, both in words and actions.
When it comes to education, I would like to take the example of the work of the Weidenfeld Institute of Jewish Studies at the University of Sussex, home to the Centre for German-Jewish Studies, of which I am privileged to serve as president. For over two decades, the institute has been dedicated to scholarly inquiry into the history, culture and thought of Jewish refugees from German-speaking lands. This not only preserves the memory of those who fled persecution but, by actively engaging with students, school children and the wider academic community, helps to ensure that contemporary understanding is informed by past knowledge and experience. Anyone who has listened today to the recollections of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and, from a different perspective, of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will realise how important it is that these stories and experiences are relayed to the young.
As has been said, 6 million people killed is a shocking figure, but Stalin has already been cited, and there is something about figures that depersonalises it. To get the full horror, one just has to be told the stories that we heard today. If those can be got across to the young, we are on our way to achieving something.
I like to think we are still the same country that took in my father 90 years ago. He was then funded in his research by an organisation call Cara, the Council for At-Risk Academics, which was founded, as it happens, in the same year he came here. My wife is currently supporting a Ukrainian family, one of whom is a lawyer and whose research is now supported by Cara. That somehow epitomises how both the good and the wicked are always with us, and it reminds us how we must fight to promote the good and suppress the wicked.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our three newcomers, the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. I am sure they are going to make a distinguished contribution to this House, and all three maiden speeches were well worth listening to.
I have not intervened in these debates in the past. Part of the reason is that I have no family history to relate such as the harrowing stories we have heard today. Also, because I am a Roman Catholic, I have not felt that our religion’s performance allowed me to say much about the Holocaust.
I was in the Foreign Office as an official during the Six Day War. I saw the way in which the Foreign Office reacted, and it was very interesting. The Arabian departments did not want anything to do with it. Frankly, had it not been for Harold Wilson, we would probably have made a lesser contribution to the Six Day War and its aftermath than we did. The combination of Harold Wilson and Lord Caradon—better known as Hugh Foot—meant that Britain ended up having quite a reasonable outcome to the war. The reason I mention this is that they suddenly put together a special department of the Foreign Office, which I was posted to from the Arabian department. One of the things I noticed, which I will come back to later, was an inability of some people to see both sides of the story. That was not because they were malicious; it was because they were just blind to an extent.
I fully support the Conservative Friends of Israel and I have been horrified by the Hamas attack, and in particular the failure, it seems, of the British press to realise that it was Hamas that attacked Israel. Israel did not do any attacking; Hamas attacked. When I look at the three released hostages last week and the gloating of the Palestinians around them, I am sorry, but I cannot feel much sympathy for them. I just wonder at the damage they are doing to their own population. It is absolutely astounding. What is quite saddening to me is what I perceive as the bias in reporting in the British press. I do not see it as being even-handed; it is all, “on the one hand, this; on the other hand, that”. The people of Israel were attacked. They have a right to defend themselves—full stop, as far as I am concerned.
I was 25 years in the European Parliament. I had a lot of time to talk to politicians from other countries of Europe—many of whom had been alive during the war and some of whom had fought during it. One who became a good friend of mine was a German general. He joined at the very end of the war in the boy soldiers brigade in Berlin. I also spoke to a lot of people around Germany. The fact of the matter is that many Germans blanked themselves out from what was going on. If you want to know what I mean, it is the way in which we blank ourselves out from what is going on in British prisons this very day: rats running around, atrocious overcrowding. No one knows about it. No one writes about it. No one deals with it.
Talking to many of my German colleagues, I am afraid it was quite clear that many of them had just blanked it out. They had lived, or their parents had lived, through the terrible 1920s, when the Weimar Republic was frankly unstable, and Germany was a horrible place to live—with massive inflation and the like. Then, along came this little man, who nobody particularly liked and who was not from their class, but, somehow, the country became richer. Things started happening. We often overlook the fact that the dispossessed effects of the Jewish community were distributed largely to the remaining Germans. Many Germans got better flats; they got more furniture; they got all sorts of things. They turned their face to the wall. They pretended they did not know, because they did not want to know. They blanked it out.
That also applies to my own Church. The Pope at that time, Pope Pius XII—Eugenio Pacelli was his name—came from one of the most established families in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He was probably the most upper-class Pope that we have had in the last 200 years. He cut his teeth, so to speak, as papal envoy in Germany. He spoke fluent German but, in 1870, Italy was reunited and the papal lands were confiscated. That was a dreadful blow to the Catholic Church and the Pacelli family refused to deal with the Italian state. Then along came Mussolini, who signed the concordat and regularised relations with the Roman Catholic Church. Pacelli was influenced by that. By that time, he had left to become the Secretary of State, which is like being the Foreign Minister, and then he became Pope. He also blanked out what was going on. He was looking for Jews who had been baptised as Catholics who could be saved. The rest were cast aside.
When I was a little boy at a convent school, I was quite firmly told that we should not be sorry for the Jews because they killed Jesus. That was in 1953, so that was what was going on then.
My final plea to the Minister is that, if we need one good thing, apart from Holocaust lessons in schools, it is education. People do not understand the different religions, and we need some education so that people understand what the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions are. That is needed because the base of tolerance is knowledge and education.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what special maiden speeches we have heard today—I welcome them all. I make special mention of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Sealand, which is up the road from Buckley, so we are almost neighbours.
Some of my Academy of Ideas colleagues are organising a summer school in July entitled, “Upheaval: Why Politics Needs a New Language”, so I have been thinking a lot about disputes over meanings of words. In this House of late, we have had tortuous debates about the meaning of everything including extremism, hate speech and terrorism. God knows what far right means these days, and some cannot even define what a woman is.
One word that is increasingly becoming unmoored from its meaning is “Holocaust”. The Holocaust is now used as a free-floating catch-all to describe every violent geopolitical event or even general human evil. But my plea is that words matter. Very much in the theme of the spot-on speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, we must insist that the “Holocaust” word refers to a particular unique event in history. The Nazi death camps were not generic; they were part of what camp survivor Elie Wiesel explains:
“The Holocaust was conceived to annihilate the last Jew on the planet”.
Despite this, even Auschwitz—a death camp designed for the genocide of the Jews—has been turned into an all-purpose symbol of human cruelty. UNESCO describes the world heritage site as a universal
“symbol of humanity’s cruelty to its fellow human beings in the 20th century”.
In this way, the Holocaust is being ripped out of its historical context.
Meanwhile, celebrity social justice activist Naomi Klein said the quiet bit out loud in an essay in the Guardian last year. She wrote that we are entering a new intellectual era, one in which people are openly asking if the Holocaust should
“be seen exclusively as a Jewish catastrophe, or something more universal”.
Klein goes on to argue that perhaps the Holocaust was not
“a unique rupture in European history”
but rather
“a homecoming of earlier colonial genocides”.
This anti-western decolonising lexicon should be a red flag. Remember, in the decolonisation narrative, Israel has been identified as the epitome of the colonial settler state and Jews branded as the embodiment of white supremacy who deserve our ire and Hamas’s actions.
Klein also notes that increasingly, people are demanding greater recognition for other groups targeted for extermination by the Nazis, as though this was in any way on a par with the targeting of the whole Jewish race for extermination.
Beyond the Guardian’s comment pages, it seems that, because we live in an era which treats victimhood as a virtue and confers moral authority on it, a queue of identity groups is laying some claim to the Holocaust experience. There even seems to be resentment in that, when Jewish voices demand that we recognise that it was they who were central to the Holocaust, it is treated as though they have been driven by narcissism.
Gradually, this has expanded into demands that any reference to the Holocaust must also mention victims of other international atrocities, whether it is Rwanda, colonial era massacres or, inevitably, contemporary events in the Middle East. The Islamic Human Rights Commission wrote to UK town halls asking them to boycott this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day on the grounds that it is “morally unacceptable” that Gaza is not considered a genocide alongside the Holocaust.
The problem is that wrenching the Holocaust from its historically specific context, in which all are victims, relativises and almost normalises it and renders it banal. One of the most devastating consequences is that it makes it difficult for the public, especially new generations, to understand the true nature of this industrialised act of anti-Semitic barbarism, and to even remember at all that the Jews were the targets. The consequences of this trend, what Brendan O’Neill’s new book, After the Pogrom, calls the “dejudification of the Holocaust”, were more than evident on Holocaust Memorial Day this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, reminded us that a whole swathe of commentators and politicians forgot even to mention the Jews, listing almost everyone else who was killed, apart from the victims: the Jews.
I am not suggesting such errors of omission are conscious acts of erasure. It somehow feels even more chilling that they are more likely examples of unconscious bias and careless forgetting. The problem with relativising the specific Holocaust is that it makes a mockery of “lest we forget”—and we can expect a lot more forgetting if we are not careful.
In my mind, the consequences of this dejudification of the Holocaust is that increasing numbers, especially of young people, do not even recognise when the iconography and language of historic Nazi period Jew hatred rear their ugly heads today. It is always so jolting when I talk to students involved in BDS campaigns and critique their calls for boycotts of Israeli foodstuffs as they wrench them off supermarket shelves, or their demands to blacklist and censor entire countries’ academics, artists, scientists and sportspeople. When, looking at scenes of blood-like red paint daubed on shop fronts, I mention that it echoes 1930s Germany, they look at me blankly.
I rather nervously disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I know that is nerve-wracking—about his Elon Musk arm gesture point. Whole swathes of young activists I know have been queuing up to denounce that as a Nazi salute, seeing far-right fascists around every corner. But when the same people see starving, emaciated Jewish hostages paraded, jeered at and humiliated by Jihadi baying mobs, or when they see political activists standing outside UK synagogues screaming “baby killers” at Jews—and those activists are my tribe—suddenly, they get a blind spot and they cannot see any Nazi salutes, symbolism or anything. They do not recognise the dejudification trends of the Holocaust past and their re-emergence today, and that is worrying.
So, how do we counter this fake news of a Jew-light Holocaust? We all reach for more education, but it bodes badly for the educational boasts that the new Holocaust memorial museum next door to Parliament is going to solve it all when, shamefully, our very own Parliament banned a Holocaust memorial exhibition from Westminster Hall because it was too political. I am not Jewish, and it is exactly more politics—political solidarity—that I think we need. It is why I was so pleased that grass-roots campaigners Our Fight UK took the Auschwitz Album, Yad Vashem’s street exhibition, to Parliament Square the weekend before Holocaust Memorial Day. Young people like Miles explained that their aim was to urgently
“inform the public what a”
real
“genocide looks like”,
and centre that on the murder of 6 million Jews.
Our urgent educational and political task must include exposing the rise of the newly powerful forces which are acting to exterminate the Jews now—“Never again” is now. Yes, I mean Hamas, Iran and the Houthis, but closer to home there are the radical Islamists and their numerous apologists, who, if we are honest, are influential in many political, cultural and media institutions. Too many of us look the other way, bite our lips, and will not name and shame. It is about time we spoke up, loudly.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I congratulate and thank the new Members of your Lordships’ House on their maiden speeches, all of which were deeply moving.
It somehow seems fitting that I should make my first speech since recent surgery to repair an undiagnosed femur fracture—on which I have been unwittingly, if somewhat painfully, hobbling for months—by speaking in this debate. It was, after all, my childhood Jewish refugee surgeon, Hanuš Weisl, who put me back together again more times than I care to remember. He lost almost all his family in the Holocaust. I think of him today and his family members, whom the wonderful Wiener Holocaust Library has established were murdered in Auschwitz in the summer of 1944. May they rest in peace and may their memory be a blessing.
Inevitably, all of us, as we have heard in this debate, turn our thoughts to our precious Holocaust survivors and to the world’s promise to them immediately after the war: “Never again”. How do we best honour them, our Holocaust survivors? I ask myself what “Never again” means. Does it, for example, simply mean no more concentration camps, crematoria or gas chambers—the physical structures which the Soviet troops stumbled upon in disbelief 80 years ago? Does it mean no more Nuremberg laws, to which Matthew Pennycook, in his powerful Statement of 23 January in the other place, implicitly referred in terms of the Nazi legislation discriminating against Jews and depriving them of rights and property? Mercifully, both are very unlikely in today’s world.
So I ask myself another question: how do we counter the challenge that remains? How do we perform the task of eradicating what the Minister described in his poignant opening remarks as man’s darkest impulses? Does that insidious and poisonous prejudice—which informed, by osmosis and within a remarkably short period of time, the culture underpinning the abomination that was the Holocaust—still exist?
We have already heard about the IHRA’s current theme, “In Plain Sight”. That phrase reminded me of something that the remarkable Holocaust survivor, Manfred Goldberg, whom the Minister mentioned, said to me about the promise “Never again”. Manfred told me that he had genuinely taken it for granted that the promise would be kept; he took it at face value at the time and for all time. I know that he is horrified that the hatred is back and in plain sight.
That brought home to me that it is not enough for me to say, “We will always remember you and the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust”. In an age of pernicious poison spread via social media, we need to acknowledge the racism still in plain sight on the streets of our capital most weekends. I refer of course to the demonstrations in central London, the first of which—the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign—unbelievably started organising while the 7 October pogrom was under way.
As well as being the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, 2025 is the 60th anniversary of Labour’s Race Relations Act receiving Royal Assent. As noble Lords will know, the Act made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of race, colour and ethnic or national origins an offence. The vile vitriol being visited on our Jewish communities clearly runs counter to the Act. This is racism, pure and simple, and it is happening in plain sight. I ask the Minister to say in her closing remarks whether she agrees that a fitting way both to mark the Act’s anniversary and to assure the survivors that “Never again” means exactly that would be for His Majesty’s Government to be even more clear that what is happening on our streets is racism and it will not be tolerated.
I take one common, supposedly innocent chant as an example. Now, I know what is meant by “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—survivors certainly do. It means the destruction of Israel. It means the mass murder of Jews for being Jews, as we saw Hamas perpetrate on 7 October. It means a one-state, not a two-state, solution.
It is understandable that, in our desire to see peace in the Middle East, some want to believe that we are dealing with a peace-loving entity in Hamas. Yet if there is one organisation that has shown time and again that it is absolutely against peace and that it does not want a two-state solution, it is Hamas; rather, it wants to kill Jews and destroy the State of Israel. I refer noble Lords to Hamas’s statements of 24 October 2023, 30 January, 14 June and 24 October 2024. Its racist, genocidal hatred on grounds of race is in plain sight.
In conclusion, I want to take up the challenge set by my noble friend Lady Eaton in her excellent speech. I welcome the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on Monday that Hamas can play no part in the future of Gaza’s governance. But can the Minister assure the House that its supporters here in the UK will not be allowed to reduce her and our sincere, renewed pledge of “Never again” to a meaningless mantra recited to coincide with Holocaust Memorial Day? Surely we can all agree that that is the least our survivors and the millions of victims of the Holocaust deserve.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My noble Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and so many of the exceptional speeches we have heard today. I pay tribute to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Katz, Lady Levitt and Lord Evans. They were powerful speeches all, and I hope noble Lords will agree that they will be influential and strong voices in this place.
As we have heard today, the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day was “For a better future”. Today I want to pay tribute to an organisation and the people within it who are seeking to create a better future for us all by educating our ever-changing world about the horrors of the past so that we do not replicate them in our futures.
Generation 2 Generation is a charity that enables descendants to tell their family Holocaust stories to a range of audiences across the UK. It currently has 41 speakers and is recruiting more. This academic year to date, the speakers have been booked to deliver their family stories to more than 390 audiences, reaching over 45,000 people. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is impressive. Its key aim is to ensure that the Holocaust is not forgotten or denied, and to challenge racism and discrimination in all its forms.
Last Sunday, I was privileged to speak to some fabulous volunteers who wanted the stories of their families to be told and not to be forgotten, to be an education to a world where propagation, propaganda and misinformation is rife. So, let me tell your Lordships about Sabina Miller.
Sabina was born in 1922. She was Jewish, one of five, and she grew up in a warm, comfortable, loving and happy home in Warsaw. When the Nazis invaded in 1939, their home was taken from them and the family was forced to relocate to the ghetto. Some 400,000 people were crammed into just over one square mile. Hygiene was impossible, food was so, so scarce, and disease was rampant. Like many, Sabina contracted typhus. She was overwhelmed with the disease and was unconscious for 18 days. She remembers her mum standing at the end of her bed saying, “You’ve got to live. You will live. You must survive”. But when she awoke, both her mother and her father had died.
The situation in the ghetto was desperate, so Sabina covered her star of David and effected an extraordinary escape. She found illegal work alongside other Jewish girls on a farm—20 years old, digging potatoes, cleaning out stables and forced to sing anti-Semitic songs while they worked. While she was there, she received a postcard from her beloved sister Esther. It said, “I’m on a train. I don’t know where I’m being taken. If anyone finds this card, please send it”. Esther must have thrown that card from a train, and someone, in a simple act of kindness, delivered it. Those were the last words that Sabina’s sister would ever address to her. Shortly after, Sabina heard that the Sokołów and Węgrów ghettos where the remainder of her family had been taken, had been, to quote the Nazis, liquidated. Her siblings, her parents, her cousins, her aunts, her uncles, her grandparents—all gone. She said later, “The fact that people have families and I haven’t is something which hurts dreadfully”.
That was just the beginning of Sabina’s amazing story of survival. She spent the winter of 1942 living in an ice-cold, small ditch, warily begging for food. She changed her identity many times, was imprisoned, was interrogated on four separate occasions by the Gestapo and was eventually sent to a forced labour camp in Germany, where she remained until the war’s end. I cannot do justice to quite how unbelievable Sabina’s story is, and how unlikely it was that she would survive.
But survive she did, as did Lela Black, born in Salonika and sent to Auschwitz with her husband, her daughter and the rest of her extended Greek family. She was the only survivor. Some 50,000 Jews lived in Salonika before the war; approximately 96% of them were murdered in Nazi death camps.
I also want to mention Tony Chuwen, a Polish Jew who survived two concentration camps, hid in the German army and escaped to Finland, finally skiing for three days over the frozen sea to Sweden. Tony, while he was serving in the German army, at huge personal risk shared his meagre rations with the woman cleaning the barracks, a Jewish woman held in a prison camp. Years later, he attended a Holocaust event and heard that two women had survived their time in a Nazi camp by sharing scraps of food that one of them had been given by a German soldier.
Sandra, Gloria and Jacqueline are the descendants of these strong, extraordinary people. They volunteer for Generation to Generation. All three women told me how their relatives completely rejected any notion of bravery or resilience. Instead, these survivors asked, “Why me?” And they answered, “I was lucky”. Their stories are dotted with unexpected acts of kindness from Jews and non-Jews alike. And perhaps that was part of their luck.
We know, in this place, that anti-Semitism, racial hatred and genocidal violence are still with us. I hope—and I know that the volunteers from Generation to Generation also hope—that by sharing these stories from survivors, one day people will no longer be dehumanised, treated as other, humiliated, terrified or murdered because of their race, creed, nationality or religion. Let us remember the horror and the evils of the Holocaust, and let us not rest until justice is done for the victims in our world where genocide again threatens our humanity.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, this afternoon. I, too, would like to add my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on their excellent contributions and maiden speeches. I have no doubt that each of them will make a wonderful contribution to this House. I would like to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that from my position I was able to see that her husband was smiling right through her presentation, with such pride. I have also come away thinking there is no such thing as a quiet breakfast in their household.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, in opening this debate in such a powerful way, mentioned seeing Manfred Goldberg last week. I, too, had the privilege of listening to this wonderful, articulate 94 year-old, who vividly described his life in Germany pre-war and how, miraculously, he managed to survive the brutality and suffering imposed on him by the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, though, Manfred is now in the minority; very few Holocaust survivors remain alive to tell us of their experiences and give us first-hand testimony to the wickedness imposed upon them and millions of others.
Unless we continue to remember the Holocaust, and the wickedness shown to the Jewish minority and other minorities across Europe, there is no guarantee this will not happen again. The photograph of released hostage Eli Sharabi captured by Hamas on 7 October 2023, looking so gaunt and emaciated, reminded so many of us of the liberation of Belsen in 1945 and the horror discovered there. We say “Never again”, but the rise in anti-Semitism here—3,528 cases reported by CST in 2024—across Europe and in Australia, Canada and the USA, makes the risk of repetition a real possibility. Particularly worrying is the rise of anti-Semitism in our universities. Although much can be done to inform and educate those born after the war, especially our children—the Holocaust became part of the English national curriculum in 1991—hearing from survivors who experienced the horrors of the Holocaust is the best way of achieving this.
If this cannot be done face to face, giving our children the opportunity of hearing from survivors remotely is the next best thing. Therefore, it is commendable that at a recent Holocaust Educational Trust dinner, our present Prime Minister announced a national ambition that every schoolchild should hear the recorded testimony of a Holocaust survivor. Other initiatives include investing a further £2 million for Holocaust education, announced by the Chancellor in her Budget, and for the teaching of the Holocaust to continue to be compulsory in state schools and expanded to include academies. These initiatives were announced by the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, following a curriculum review.
All this is excellent, but to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive and to inform and educate today’s and tomorrow’s generations, the creation of Holocaust centres and memorials all around the world is so important. That is why I strongly support the building of a memorial and learning centre. While the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum are impressive, building a lasting memorial here, right in the centre of Westminster, next to our Parliament—which has always stood for liberty and freedom all around the world—is making a massive statement that we in the UK remember now and will not forget in the future the events of the 1930s and 1940s which resulted in 6 million Jews and other minorities being slaughtered.
Let the world know that in this wonderful United Kingdom, our home, we will always stand against tyranny and prejudice, wherever they raise their ugly heads. The 2015 Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report recommended the building of a “striking and prominent” new national memorial, to be located in central London. There can be no more striking and prominent location than right here in Victoria Tower Gardens. Objections have been raised to this location. It is argued that there are security and traffic issues, that the atmosphere of Victoria Tower Gardens will be changed, that access may be restricted, that too many people might visit the memorial—3 million visitors a year are expected, and I hope that we increase on that number—and that there are alternative sites. Frankly, I do not believe that these objections stack up. Security and traffic issues will arise wherever the memorial is located, and we will sort them, as we always do. As for the atmosphere in the park, I know how sensitive those responsible for the memorial are to this issue and how they truly believe, as do I, that the park can be improved.
By going ahead with the building of the memorial and learning centre here, we are raising awareness of the Holocaust and acknowledging its importance, just as was achieved last month by the visit of His Majesty King Charles to Auschwitz on Holocaust Memorial Day, commemorating 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. No other memorial in any location in the world will be as prominent as this one—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The earlier part of the noble Lord’s speech was very moving and compelling, but a number of us have avoided burying this debate in a difficult discussion about the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. Will he do the same and move on to another subject?
Lord Gold (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It so happens that I am through on this. I just wanted to add one last word, which is that we should be very proud of going ahead with this. I accept the noble Lord’s intervention and have nothing else to say except to pay tribute to everyone who has spoken here today. Every single speech has been most moving.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for just over two years and this is the first time I have taken part in a Holocaust Memorial Day debate. It is a humbling experience to listen to all the moving speeches.
As we all know, the word “Holocaust” is most commonly associated with the Nazi genocide of Jews in Europe during the Second World War. It is one of the darkest and most horrific episodes in human history and highlights man’s inhumanity to man. Six million Jews were murdered—not 1 million or 2 million but 6 million. How could it happen? When I watch the grainy black and white footage of the concentration camps, it feels as though it happened yesterday—not in some distant medieval time, not 100 years ago, but yesterday and as if I could almost touch it. How could anyone conceive of the idea that they could eradicate an entire race of millions of people from the face of this earth and not be held accountable by future generations?
Where were the voices of reason, of right-minded men and women in Germany at that time? How could a nation that gave the world great literature, philosophy and classical music descend into such barbarity? It is said that when the news of what was happening in these concentration camps first reached London and Washington, the political establishment refused to believe it, thinking that it was simply not possible. Yet, due to some complex geopolitics, Germany was taken in by this evil, grotesque ideology, led by unscrupulous men, resulting in this mass murder on an industrial scale.
Learning about such horror should remind us all of the dangers of nationalism, xenophobia and the rhetoric of hate. Regardless of our political differences, it is our responsibility to oppose politicians and leaders who prey on people’s fears and promote hate. It is up to us to defend democracy, freedom, life and liberty. Over the centuries, mankind has committed countless horrendous mass murders, massacres and atrocities. Some have faced justice, others have not. The German playwright and anti-Nazi activist Bertolt Brecht wrote:
“When crimes begin to pile up, they become invisible. When sufferings become unendurable, the cries are no longer heard”.
In 1948, the United Nations established the genocide convention, which remains the main international legal instrument for preventing genocides. Yet, tragically, this has not prevented further atrocities being committed. In July 1995, right in the heart of Europe, 8,000 men and boys were murdered in cold blood by Bosnian Serbs in what is known as the Srebrenica massacre. In July 1994, in Rwanda, over a million people were slaughtered. Back in 1995, the Turkish army systematically murdered well over a million Armenians—an event widely regarded as genocide.
In 1968, American troops slaughtered hundreds of unarmed civilians in a village in Vietnam and gang-raped women and girls in what became known as the My Lai massacre. The only man convicted of this crime, William Calley, was later pardoned by President Nixon, and that speaks volumes about our present-day justice system.
In November 1984, after the assassination of the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, we witnessed the planned massacre of many thousands of innocent Sikh men, women and children in Delhi. Forty years have passed yet justice remains elusive.
In India, at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on 13 April 1919, during the British Raj, General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on an unarmed crowd of over 20,000 people, killing hundreds. The British historian Nigel Collett, in his biography of General Dyer, titled The Butcher of Amritsar, claimed that over 800 men, women and children were mown down in just 10 minutes, with hundreds more dying from their wounds.
I could go on with many more examples, as history is full of such atrocities and massacres. Above all, though, the Holocaust is the worst of them all. It happened.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and to wind up from these Benches a debate in your Lordships’ House. Sometimes that is also a privilege, and today clearly falls into the latter category.
It has, of course, been a pleasure to listen to the many fine speeches from all parts of the House. I hope I will be forgiven if I single out right at the start the three impressive maiden speeches that we have heard—those of the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand, and the diamond-studded speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who, not for the first and perhaps not for the last time, left the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, following in her wake. I must say in all seriousness that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, speak many times in this Chamber but, even by his standards, today’s speech was outstanding and extremely moving. The fact that the three maiden speakers chose a non-party-political topic for their speeches means that I can congratulate them even more fulsomely than is usual. I know I speak for everyone here when I say we are looking forward to their many contributions in future years.
In this debate, as the annunciators remind us, we are asked to “take note of” Holocaust Memorial Day. Although that is the traditional form of the question for such debates in your Lordships’ House, I suggest that a debate asking us to take note is particularly appropriate for this topic. The Holocaust happened because people did not take note. They did not take note of what was being said on their streets, of what was being decided in their Parliament or when extremists marched through their streets, shops were boycotted and Jews were discriminated against in public services, in professions and in the public square. They simply did not take note. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, they blanked themselves out.
The Holocaust did not happen overnight, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield reminded us. It was planned, and the plans were made public. It was actually founded on and in law. One of the overlooked casualties of the Holocaust, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, remarked, was law and justice. The murders in the gas chambers were preceded by concentration camps, the concentration camps by ghettos and the ghettos by discrimination, and that discrimination was rooted in law and upheld by the German courts, their lawyers and, yes, their judges. The fact that it did not happen overnight prompts us to ask: why did people not take note? Where were the protests?
Like others, I miss the presence of the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, especially on days like this. As he pointed out, there were no protests when, on one day in 1933, all Jewish lawyers in Germany came to their offices and cleared their desks—under compulsion of law, let us remember—nor was there a protest when doctors had to do the same, and then all the other professions. There was simply silence, indifference. No one took note. Nor was there any protest in Austria when, on one day in 1938, one-sixth of Vienna’s population, the Jews, were banned from owning property. That was one-sixth of a city, but there was not a single protest.
If Holocaust Memorial Day is to mean anything, it must encourage us to speak out and call out injustice. We have a duty to take note. I suggest that, as part of that duty to take note, we should consider Holocaust Memorial Day, which is now a quarter of a century old, and pay tribute to the work of many organisations. This includes the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, so ably led by Karen Pollock, which work so hard to commemorate and educate. I also commend respectfully the work done by my noble friend Lord Pickles in this area.
Let me make three points. First, let us be clear about the unambiguous aim of the Holocaust. It was the systematic and industrial murder of Jews with the aim that there would be no Jews left in the world. The Holocaust was put into effect by means of laws which explicitly referenced Jews and made special provision for them. The Nazis had no trouble using the word Jews. They knew who their victims were and, just as importantly, why they were the victims. The Jews were to be murdered simply and only because they were Jews.
So, in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I ask: why do so many organisations seem to find it so difficult to use the words Jews or Jewish when commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day? The Royal Free Hospital referenced
“millions of people killed during the Holocaust”—
no mention of Jews. Barnet Council referenced the “victims of the Holocaust”—no mention of Jews. Cambridge City Council is another entity for which the word Jews appears to have become verboten. This is not a party-political point, so let me single out for praise Islington Council, with its solid Labour majority, which referred to
“the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust”.
If Islington Council can do it, so can everybody else.
Of course we can, should, will and must remember other victims and why they were victims—because they were gay, or Roma, or had mental or physical disabilities—but the overwhelming majority of the victims of the Holocaust were Jews because they were Jews, and they deserve to be remembered as Jews. We do not remember the victims of the Holocaust by denying who the victims were or why they were the victims.
Secondly, let us be clear about the uniqueness of the Holocaust. Just as we do not remember the victims by denying why they were victims, we do not commemorate the victims by lumping the Holocaust together with other genocides and tragedies. We must not globalise the Holocaust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put it. There is space in the human heart for all victims. To recognise the uniqueness of that appalling enterprise the Holocaust in terms of its numbers, its industrialised systems of murder, and its use of entire state apparatus for one purpose only—to rid the world of Jews—is not to denigrate, demean or ignore other genocides, whether in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, or anywhere else, a point powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. We do not remember the victims of the Holocaust by denying the uniqueness of the Holocaust.
Thirdly, we certainly do not remember the victims by denying that there was a genocide at all or by using the murdered Jews of the Holocaust in some perverted form of inverted history to attack living Jews. We are used to the ramblings of Holocaust deniers and those who refuse to confront the reality of the Nazi genocide and we rightly ignore them, but denial comes in many forms. To give the most egregious example, the President of Ireland, in his speech at a national Holocaust commemoration event, began by saying that the Holocaust started with the “manipulation of language” and then, astonishingly, referred to the Holocaust an as “attempted genocide”, twice. If you talk about an attempted genocide, you are denying that it was a genocide.
The President of Ireland also used his speech—at a national commemoration event for the Holocaust, let us remember—to deliver his views on Israel and Gaza. I will not trouble the House with what he said, as it does not merit repetition in Hansard—or, frankly, anywhere else. His words were so incendiary that Irish Jews who protested the president’s use—or, I should say, misuse—of that sacred platform were forcibly removed from the venue. Jews being manhandled out of a Holocaust commemoration event; how could that happen? It happens because there are too many people who are only too willing to attend and speak at events commemorating dead Jews but who are nowhere to be seen when it comes to protecting living Jews.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was absolutely right when he reminded us that the hatred of Jews did not begin in Nazi Germany in 1933. My noble friend Lady Eaton was equally right to remind us that the need to protect Jews did not end in 1945. For all the talk of a Jewish diaspora, living Jews today —the Jewish community—are overwhelmingly based in two locations only: North America and Israel. The former, at least for the moment, can look after itself, but the latter needs and deserves our support. It is not just that Israel was born in the shadow of the Holocaust; it is that if there had been an Israel, there would not have been a Holocaust. It really is that simple.
When the first Zionist Congress met in 1897, no one then knew which of the various strategies for the survival of the Jewish people would prove successful. Would it be to embrace communism or socialist Bundism? Would it be to advocate for western assimilationism, or even to join forces with Arab nationalism? They all had their supporters, but which was the was the right path? Today, we know the answer to that question. The Holocaust gave its final, bloody say. The answer of history was found in the piled bodies and heaps of ashes at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and elsewhere.
As in 1945, so also in 2025: the simple fact is that Israel and Zionism, which is no more and no less than the right to Jewish self-determination, is essential for the future of the Jewish people as a nation. We do not have to like modern Israel any more than we like or do not like modern Greece. We can agree or disagree with its Government, its policies and its actions. However, we cannot commemorate Jews, who were victims in the Holocaust because they could not defend themselves, if we deny Jews today, whether individually or collectively, the right and the means to defend themselves.
Where others did not take note, we will take note and we will do more. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, asked what is meant by “Never again”. I will answer that large question with a very short answer, building upon a point made by my noble friend Lord Gold. It means that we will not stand by silently at a time when pictures of starved and emaciated Jews—who have been starved and are emaciated only because they are Jews—which we saw as black and white pictures in our history books, have reappeared as colour images of released Israeli hostages on last night’s TV news.
In accordance with Jewish tradition, I will not end these remarks on a sad note. Let me end by congratulating the usual channels—the powers that be, if I can borrow William Tyndale’s magnificent phrase—for arranging this debate today. Holocaust Memorial Day was a few weeks ago, but today is a very appropriate day for this debate. That is because today is a Jewish festival known as Tu Bishvat, celebrated each year on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Shevat. It is one of the four new years in the Jewish calendar—the monarch may have two birthdays but we have four new years. Each serves a different purpose: Rosh Hashanah in the autumn begins the Jewish new year for many purposes, but Tu Bishvat was the date for calculating the agricultural cycle for the purpose of biblical tithes. In modern times, it has become a celebration of ecological awareness, when many trees are planted. It is often known as the “new year for trees”.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we commemorate the many Jewish communities who were uprooted, and the millions of individuals—men, women and all too many children—who were cut down. Family trees, such as mine, are shorn of many branches because they were consumed in the fire and the horror of the Holocaust. But in the spirit of Tu Bishvat, we will today pledge ourselves not only to take note of the destruction wrought by the Holocaust but to plant afresh, to nurture new growth and to help those communities, both in Israel and throughout the diaspora, to blossom and flourish again. Eighty years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must loudly and confidently proclaim: “Am Yisrael Chai”—the people of Israel lives.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a powerful and moving debate. This debate, as ever, is your Lordships’ House at its best, and it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who delivered an incredible speech. I wish him, and the trees, chag sameach.
Before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I start by offering a huge mazeltov to my noble friends who have made such wonderful maiden speeches. There might be a little Yiddish and Hebrew in my speech today—good luck, Hansard.
I start with my good and noble friend Lord Katz, the chair of the JLM, who was its chair when I was its parliamentary chair. I think it would be fair to say that he was my partner in crime and my friend, as we fought for the heart and soul of our party. It was a rollercoaster, but, because of him and many Members of your Lordships’ House, we won. Today, I know that Chaim and Solomon would have been so proud to see him deliver his maiden speech.
I will follow, I think, by talking about my noble friend Lady Levitt, whose speech was spectacular. I love the idea of her as a 14 year-old getting expelled. I too was always naughty, but I was too scared of my teachers to be that naughty. She was quite clear about why she is here and about the rule of law—but I think all Members of your Lordships’ House will remember the jewellery. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will ever match that with additional gifts to his wife. I am quite clear that, while he may be lucky to have her, we on our Benches are delighted to have her. That was an extraordinary and incredible speech.
I turn to the third maiden of today, from my noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand. We did not quite celebrate his role in defeating the evil of the politics of Jeremy Corbyn. My noble friend was the man who helped rescue my party from the brink and who suspended Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party. I will always be grateful for the work that he did. He delivered on the now Prime Minister’s commitment to rip out anti-Semitism from the Labour Party by its roots. Importantly for this side of the House, he was general secretary of my party when we won the general election—and for that we are grateful.
It is an honour to close this debate, which was so well opened by my noble friend Lord Khan. This House is very special, and the fact that this debate, of all debates, is being opened by a practising Muslim and closed by a practising Jew shows just how far our society has come.
As we have heard, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day marked the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is an especially poignant occasion: the last major anniversary when we can expect to have significant numbers of Holocaust survivors able to share their testimony. It was attended by His Majesty the King, a symbol, if ever there were one, to the Jewish community and the world of the importance of this date and the place that the Holocaust shares in our collective history. This is the last major anniversary where it is the words of survivors, not ours, that touch our hearts.
That is why, as ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has once again reminded us of his modesty. It may have been just a train that he got on, but we are so grateful that he did and that his parents were brave enough to put him on it. As he reminded us, Nicky Winton gave us a blessing: he gave us my noble friend, an inspirational colleague. Nicky Winton also provided us with the clearest example of how one person truly can change the world.
It has been a privilege to hear so many noble Lords share their personal experiences and reflections during this debate. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield reminded us, for many of us, this is now our responsibility. If the words “never again” are to be made real, the onus is on us and on every generation going forward to tell the stories of our families. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of her family’s heartbreaking stories. For me, her story will always be about “survival by silverware”; I will never forget it.
The personal testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about his family reminded us of the impact of the Holocaust on those who survived, and the impact of survivor guilt. This theme was also touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
It is also incredibly important on days like today to remember those who liberated us, because they too had to live with what they saw. I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey not just for her speech but for highlighting the role her father played in the liberation.
My story, too, is a personal one. When I spoke in this debate last year, I spoke about my family arriving in the UK in the 1890s, having fled the pogroms of Tsarist Russia. As far as we know, not one of those who chose to remain in the shtetl survived the Shoah. I am proud to be British, but I also realise how lucky I am to be British. For my family, anti-Jewish hatred is not an academic exercise; it is formative to my understanding of my place in the world. The Shoah helped shape not just my existence, but my world view. My family knows only too well, as do the families of many in your Lordships’ House, where hate can lead and the importance of security and freedom—and the requirement, the duty, to fight for the core human rights we take for granted at our peril. That powerful point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Neuberger.
We are here today to remember those who were murdered because of who they were, not what they did. They were apparently easy targets for ideologues and dictators who sought to gain and abuse power by scapegoating communities, amplifying tropes and embracing hate and fear over hope, building on thousands of years of hatred towards my community. As my noble friend Lord Parekh reminded us, they also used the tools of the state to murder Jews.
At a time when my community and many others are once again scared, I want to find some hope in this horror—some light in the darkness. As we do this, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for his work. His dedication to Holocaust memorial and the fight against anti-Semitism, both here and across the globe, are not just recognised but celebrated. I, for one, am grateful for his service. He is one of the lights in the darkness.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, people across the world came together and lit candles to remember the six million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust and the hundreds of thousands of others killed for being gay, disabled, Roma and Sinti, black, trade unionist, a Jehovah’s Witness—anyone considered a threat to the Aryan people. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, reminded us, behind each of the statistics and the people we talk about there was a person, a family and a story. I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this Government are clear on the unique evil that the Holocaust was and the specific, devastating impact on the Jewish community. In 1933, there were nine and a half million Jews living in Europe; in 1945, there were not.
Language matters, but so do symbols. When we talk about lighting the darkness, the candle’s flame represents the human soul and serves as a reminder of the frailty and beauty of life. As we remember the appalling acts of the Holocaust, it has become so much more than that. This frailty and beauty are ever present at the children’s memorial in Yad Vashem, which represents one and a half million Jewish children murdered in the Holocaust. In the underground chamber, the flame of a single candle is reflected by countless mirrors, while the names, ages and home towns of children who were murdered are read out in Hebrew, English and Yiddish. Each reflection reminds us of a life not lived; a child who was murdered before they could make a mark on the world; a family that was never going to grow. The wrenching power of this sacred memorial to what was lost, for me, at least, allows us to see the totality of the Shoah—the true scale of the loss. I know that if I were to visit it a thousand times, each time my heart would break.
Yad Vashem allows us to see the depravity to which man can sink when we begin to see our fellow human beings as somehow less than us, less worthy of dignity and of life. We see how evil can triumph when good people do nothing; how silence led to one of the most appalling crimes in history; how people were targeted for who they were, how they prayed or who they loved. But Yad Vashem is more than just a memorial and museum to remind us of man’s capacity for evil: it also provides us with hope—the stories of the righteous among the nations who refused to be bystanders. It is here that we need to find our hope: a reminder that we are not impotent; that we can all stand up against the politics of hatred and that our actions can change someone’s world, can be a light in the darkness.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, reminded us, listening to first-hand witness is vital and provides a light in the darkness, a source of hope and inspiration. At a special ceremony held in Parliament to mark Holocaust Memorial Day earlier this year, we heard the testimony of Alfred Garwood, someone I had not heard before. He was born in a Nazi ghetto in 1942, imprisoned in Bergen-Belsen and liberated by the Red Army when he was being moved to another camp, all before his third birthday. He survived only because his father had been born in London and was considered valuable to the Nazis. Alfred spent the rest of his childhood in Britain and grew up in the centre of a community of Holocaust survivors. He has devoted his life to understanding the psychological impact of trauma related to the genocide. His words will stay with me for ever: “If you are consumed by hate, the only people you successfully hurt is yourself”. He is a light in the darkness.
As many Members of your Lordships’ House have said, we cannot ignore what is in front of us, and what is in front of us, as reported by the CST this week, is shocking levels of anti-Semitism on our streets, which are scarring our towns and cities. The report released by CST yesterday recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in 2024. There are only 250,000 Jews in the UK. There will not be a Jewish family who was not touched by an anti-Semitic incident in the last year. Ten are being reported every day. This is the second highest number on record, surpassed only by the appalling figures of 2023, when there were 4,296 incidents, the majority of which followed the pogroms of 7 October. As my community grieved about events abroad, where they were worried about their families in Israel, they were being targeted at home. Their only crime was to be Jewish. This is not acceptable in 21st-century Britain.
These rising numbers are a wake-up call for us all. How can it be that one of the smallest minority communities in the UK is facing such hatred? While the number of incidents is high, we must not lose sight of the fact that not all hate crimes are reported. How many Members of your Lordships’ House who are regularly targets of the racists report every incident? Even I do not. My life has to be more than their hatred, and sometimes I do not want to pick up the phone and say what happened to me in the street. But we must appreciate the scale of that challenge.
However, while it is easy to be disheartened, that is not the approach I am prepared to take. The work of the CST, the Anti-Semitism Policy Trust, the Holocaust Education Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Association of Jewish Refugees ensures that they are all lights in the darkness; as is Generation 2 Generation, so strongly promoted by my noble friend Lady Brown of Silverton. She gave such powerful testimony, and I am delighted that she is working with them. All the groups and organisations that are working together demonstrate that we are never powerless in the face of hatred.
I, for one, am very aware that I owe my safety and security to the dedicated team of professional staff and volunteers at the CST, who have protected me when I have been in the middle of a racist storm. CST, HET, HMDT and AJR are out there every day, actively tackling anti-Jewish hatred, educating about the dangers of where hatred can lead and remembering that crime of crimes, the Holocaust. Their work also shows that we all have choices. We can choose to be the light; we can call out those who hide in dark places. We have the choice to ignore what happens to others or to act on behalf of others. It is much easier when someone stands in front of you if you are targeted than having to fight for yourself.
This is our obligation: not simply to bear witness but to act, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, made clear. What does this mean today? It means confronting bigotry and hatred in all its forms. It has no place in the classrooms of children, on the campuses of our universities, in our hospitals or in the corridors of power. Nor does it have any place on the streets of the United Kingdom.
We must never forget that our children are not born to hate; they are taught to hate. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Gold, made clear, they can also be taught about love and history.
This year, Holocaust Memorial Day has reminded us that our freedoms are all too fragile. There is a responsibility on all of us to do everything we can to protect and cherish them. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, reminded us of both the international context and the scale of anti-Semitism. The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, spoke movingly about the banality of evil and how many other acts of violence there have been in our society.
Today, we reflect on where we are, where we were and where we are going. I will give the final word to a Holocaust survivor, the late Sir Ben Helfgott, who said:
“My Holocaust experiences may have hardened me, made me more realistic about human nature, but I was repelled by the evil I witnessed. I despaired, but I did not let cruelty and injustice break my spirit. I refused to poison my life with revenge and hatred for hatred is corrosive. Instead I was left with a dream—to live in a world of understanding, compassion, fraternity and love for my fellow man”.
Bank Closures: Impact on Rural Communities
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of bank closures in the past decade and the impact on people in rural communities.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this short debate and look forward to listening to each of the contributions that they will bring. While this debate has its focus on diverse rural communities, I know that the issue before us is not solely rural.
Last month, Lloyds Banking Group announced that it will be close 136 bank branches across the country. The Tyne valley in Northumberland will see another three branches close their doors—two in Hexham and one in Prudhoe—meaning that customers in Hexham will need to travel over 15 miles to Consett to visit their nearest Lloyds branch.
Lloyds’ announcement comes after a decade of decline in the number of high street banks. Figures from Which? show that 6,266 bank branches have closed across the UK over the past 10 years, representing 63% of branches open at the start of 2015. If bank branches continue closing at such a rate, we face living in a society where those unable to bank digitally are financially excluded.
However, it is not the closure of banks that is at the heart of this issue; it is the stripping away of essential services without adequate alternative provision. With the number of customer transactions at the Lloyds branch in Prudhoe having almost halved in the last five years, its closure is understandable. Online banking is indeed far more convenient for many, but where does that leave those who rely on the services that in-person banking provides, those living in rural areas whose broadband is unreliable, those who struggle to understand online systems and fear the risk of fraud, those on low incomes who rely on cash to manage their budget, and those in need of advice to set up a mortgage or business for whom a phone call cannot compare?
While the rise of online banking has increased the ease of managing money for many, the support that face-to-face services provide continues to be vital, especially to some of the most vulnerable people. An Age UK survey reveals that the use of online banking is as low as 14% among the 85-plus age group. A complete transition to digital banking risks financially excluding many older people, making it harder for them to manage their money and fully participate in society.
The closure of banks also reflects the wider issue of declining high street services. We should not underestimate the contribution of such services to fostering a sense of connection in diverse communities—this is not, as I said, solely an issue of rurality—in the context of a culture with increasing isolation and loneliness.
Access to cash also remains essential, with 5 million people continuing to use it every day. The closure of local banks puts pressure on small rural businesses, some of which experience a lower footfall because of less access to cash in their area. Many owners are forced to travel further distances to deposit cash and carry out their banking, leading to reduced opening hours. There are also those with special needs, for whom using banking apps is not an option.
I welcome the new duty that the Financial Conduct Authority has placed on banks to assess the impact that the closure of a branch will have on access to cash in the area and to ensure that adequate services are implemented ahead of closure. However, cash assessments address only part of the issue. Those regulations do not protect vital face-to-face services that people rely on. The assessment of cash access in Prudhoe completed by LINK last month deemed that there are already cash access facilities within a mile radius of the Lloyds branch that will close this coming May. It therefore concluded that no further services, such as a banking hub, are needed in Prudhoe. The assessment does not, however, consider the impact on access to face-to-face services within the community as they lose the town’s one remaining physical bank branch.
I fully support the introduction and rollout of banking hubs, enabling communities to access in person the fundamental function of banks from a range of providers where bank branches are scarce. I praise the Government for their commitment to open 350 hubs over the next five years and particularly the recent announcement of plans to open 10 new hubs, including in Alnwick and Amble in Northumberland and in Whitley Bay in north Tyneside. Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the pace of the rollout. According to Cash Access UK, the provider of banking hubs, it takes approximately 12 months to open a hub, as it must secure a suitable property and appoint operators and community bankers. What steps are the Government taking to speed up the rollout of banking hubs in light of increasing bank closures, and what certainty do they have that the FCA will fulfil its duty of ensuring that no community is left with a gap between the closure of a bank and the opening of a banking hub?
Considering the current rate of bank closures and recent announcements from Lloyds, I am concerned that 350 hubs will not be enough to fill the gap in services that the rapidly closing bank branches are leaving. Are the Government open to increasing this target to meet the needs of diverse communities?
Finally, while banking hubs are essential in providing face-to-face services, I also believe that they have a key role to play in bridging the digital divide. Banking hubs are well placed to offer training and support to those who do not find it easy to manage their finances online and to equip them with the digital skills to do so. What steps are the Government taking to encourage banking hubs to provide training to enable people to manage their finances online and to promote digital inclusion and thereby reduce digital poverty?
Online banking is an innovative tool to manage our personal finances, but it should not come at the expense of removing essential services from rural communities, nor the digital and financial exclusion of some of the most vulnerable people in society. I urge the Government to ensure that no one is left behind and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate deserves our congratulations and thanks for raising this topic, which is crucial to the strength of communities throughout the country and therefore to the country itself. She is not only reverend, she is right.
I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. The relevance of that, which will come as no surprise to your Lordships, is that I want to talk about the Post Office.
I believe in the Post Office. Despite all it has done, despite the mayhem and trauma that it has inflicted on sub-postmasters throughout the country and despite the appalling scandal of the Horizon saga, the Post Office is essential to communities up and down the country. I will go so far as to say that I love the Post Office—not because of its management, obviously, nor because of its structure or behaviour, but because of the relationships that sub-postmasters have with their communities. It was those relationships that made the Post Office brand the most trusted brand in the country. Sub-postmasters know their communities: they help pensioners with any issues they might have, they keep an eye out for people who have not been around recently and who therefore might need help, and they hold the community together. They lead the community. That is one of the reasons it was so disgraceful of the Post Office management to use and abuse that most trusted brand in the country to prosecute and persecute the people who had generated that trust.
This debate, for which I again thank the right reverend Prelate, gives me an opportunity to say that the Post Office may form the basis of a wide-ranging solution to the problems that she rightly sets out. The UK’s banking network has worse than halved since 2015. The LINK network says that there are about 3,000 bank branches left. The Minister for Small Businesses, speaking in another place last week, said that we are below 5,000. Either way, it is not enough.
Age UK has briefed your Lordships on how this hits the elderly particularly hard. The elderly may be less digitally adroit than younger people, they may need to be protected from online scams, they may rely more on cash and they may need face-to-face advice. The solution to these issues is the Post Office. The Government have the ambition of banking hubs and they are rolling out 350 of them, over 100 of which are already up and running. That is excellent, but it is not ambitious enough.
Hubs are the key to holding communities together. Those hubs could—and in my opinion should—include not just banking but social interaction. They could include that essential ingredient of all civilised life: coffee, and even cake. Over the coffee and cake, people could meet to discuss what to do if they feel digitally excluded. They could bring their laptops in and work out how to upgrade them and how to protect themselves from scams. They could access all manner of government services, local and national, and possibly even other services, including driving licences and powers of attorney. They could work out how to deal with planning applications and they could buy things—and not just coffee and cake. Perhaps there could be a health centre hub—so they could be told they were drinking too much coffee. All of this would be not just a major step forward in relation to convenience but good for the resilience of the country. Resilience is the new black.
A couple of years ago, I chaired a Select Committee which examined risk planning and management. We found that the key to dealing with risk is general resilience and that resilience is most in evidence when it is bolstered and disseminated by strong communities. If the Post Office is about anything, it is about communities
The last thing the Government should be doing, as sadly happened in November, is closing post offices. As banks close their branches, we need more post offices, not fewer. We need bigger post offices, with the wonderful sub-postmasters getting back to their rightful role as leaders and enablers of their strong communities.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and to have the opportunity to congratulate him again on being recognised as Parliamentarian of the Year for all the work that he did to represent the postmistresses and postmasters through that terrible period: one of the darkest periods in this country’s legal history.
I also congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for securing such an important debate. I declare my technology and financial services interests, not least as adviser to Ecospend and Trustly.
I will concentrate on connectivity, cash and community. Connectivity is the essence of being human: how we relate and how we connect with one another in real time, in the physical world. With bank branches retreating from our high streets, gaining financial services is becoming vanishingly impossible in the real world.
So, what is the solution for people who want to do their daily banking, not just for individuals but for micro and small businesses as well? The stats tell us that, whichever one chooses, you can be, in a certain percentage, a mile or three miles away from your nearest branch. But when one looks at other elements of connectivity, that is as good as being 300 miles away if you cannot get there.
I, too, will focus on the key role I believe the Post Office can play to bring forward solutions in this space. It is a brand that has been in our communities and our society for over half a millennium. There has to be a future for such a brand to deliver on the financial, digital inclusion and community cohesion challenges to connectivity.
What happens if people find themselves without a banking branch or easy access to a post office? We are told, “You can go online”. But what if you cannot? It might not be accessible or, indeed, you may not want to—and there are many reasons for that, not least the fact that we are in the midst of a fraud epidemic. The three largest economies on planet earth are, first, the United States of America, secondly, China, and thirdly, economic crime and fraud. Can the Minister say whether the Government understand why people may not choose to go online? What are they doing further to help people online and in particular, when they are in that online world, with something as personal and serious as finance?
I turn to connectivity. What happens if you have no bank branch, and the broadband and mobile coverage isn’t all that in your area? That is especially the case in rural communities, but there are also some city not-spots. You can be as financially savvy and digitally smart as you want, and you can have the best device, but with no broadband or mobile connectivity that payment will not be made. What is the Government’s plan to look at all these elements of connectivity, to enable everybody to have the financial and digital inclusion not only that they deserve and need but that is vital if the Government are to deliver on levelling up and their growth agenda? If the bank branch has gone and there is no bus and no broadband, it is difficult to see financial and digital inclusion.
A lot of good work has happened around access to cash. What is the Government’s medium-term commitment to enabling access to cash and to the very service that underpins cash and the ease of accessing it in communities across our country? Can the Minister say whether there is a continuing commitment to free access to cash at all ATMs across the country?
What is the Government’s plan for cash acceptance? To put it in terms: what currency does cash have if there is no place to spend it? As my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot said, cash is such a key underpinning for resilience, including financial resilience for individuals who do not want to go online or who want to run their household or business with cash for reasons of control. Similarly, for the broader economy, what is the Government’s view on the resilience of continuing the cash system, if and when things go wrong in the digital space?
Finally, what are the Government’s plans for further innovating around access to, and acceptance of, cash? I was fortunate to bring an amendment to the Bill that became the Financial Services Act 2021, which enabled cashback without the need for a purchase. What is the measure of its success? Most of the transactions that have occurred as a result of that service are for £20 and under, so it is really delivering financial inclusion.
The third “c” is the most important: community. Yes, we can build digital communities, and they can be incredibly effective, but ultimately it is important how and where we meet and come together, and how we relate in the physical space—the human world. Some may say “IRL”, but it is that community space where so much human potential—and economic, social and psychological good—can get done.
I have a quartet of final questions for the Minister. How many hubs should be established by the end of this year? I agree that we could be more ambitious. Will the Minister consider setting an ambitious target of 1,000 hubs by the end of this Parliament? It would take at least 2,000 hubs to properly cover the branches that have disappeared—and continue to disappear. What are the Government’s thoughts on increasing business banking services within these hubs? For people who run small and micro-businesses, this could be a lifeline. They do not have time to get into a vehicle and go five miles to another town, they want to run their businesses. What are the plans for increasing business banking facilities at the hubs?
While we are on the issue of financial inclusion, I ask the Minister: what are the Government’s views on flat-screen card payment devices? These are completely inaccessible for blind people and many other people. The worst thing about it is that it is taking away something which was previously accessible—the card payment machine, which had buttons on—and enabled independent payments. Now, because of that technological change, they are completely inaccessible. Will the Government consider looking at this and giving their view on whether this breaches equalities legislation?
Financial and digital inclusion often walk hand in hand. It is the Government’s role—it is all of our role—to play a part in bringing them about. The social, human and community possibilities that come as a result are what makes it worth being in a country such as the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Ultimately, it is an issue for rural communities. It is an issue for all communities because, at its heart, finance is how we enable possibilities. That is the purpose: individual possibilities, business possibilities and community possibilities. I thank the right reverend Prelate again for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters this evening.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I join in the thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for obtaining this debate. It may be a short debate but, as others have said, it is an exceedingly important one. If it was not the last debate before recess, there would probably be a much bigger attendance but the range of comments would be very much the same. This is an area where the House has tended to be of one voice in its general concerns. That has not always penetrated through to the regulators or the banking community.
The right reverend Prelate described very accurately that the whole banking landscape has changed beyond recognition in the last five years. I accept the number of about 3,000 branches remaining open in the UK. More of them are closing on almost a daily basis. That is compared with about 10,000 10 years ago and over 20,000 in the late 1980s.
We can all accept that the rapid transition to digital banking and a broadly cashless way of life suits a lot of people. However, there are an increasing number of people and communities—especially people with disabilities, older people and particularly people in rural areas—who are being left behind because their basic banking needs are barely being met by the system as it is today. Rural Northern Ireland is an extreme example of an area of concern. Some areas of the UK can now very accurately be described as “banking deserts”, with long trips to physical branches and often not even a reasonable bus route for someone who does not have a car.
The FCA has produced new guidance on bank closures: it is very cash-focused. Is the Minister able to comment on whether she thinks it is adequate? Can she tell us whether sanctions have been applied to banks which seek to evade the intent of that guidance?
It is not just individuals who are affected. As other speakers have said, many small businesses, especially independent shops, have been very adversely impacted, and bank closures have added to that growing sense of desolation in many high streets. Surveys show that many customers feel they are being forced into a new way of banking which they find far less convenient and secure. In addition, customers whose local branch has been shut down not only are travelling long distances if they want to talk to someone about their money but feel that that whole closure process is happening without proper engagement with them, and certainly without the consent of many vulnerable groups and communities. It has simply been done to them and they feel powerless. It would be naive not to recognise that the banks are saving some £2.5 billion annually with these changes, so they are very motivated to close bank branches and move away from providing that face-to-face activity. Some 5 million people still look on cash as a necessity, and 5% have no bank account.
Far too often, the debate is framed solely around access to cash. That really fails to recognise that some people want and need face-to-face banking without having to make a long journey. It might be something such as registering a death, probate, powers of attorney, support with fraudulent activity, larger payments and transfers, and help on mortgages and loans. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, pointed out, small businesses often find that face-to-face discussion is necessary for them to have the confidence to begin to branch out and acquire the knowledge that they need to borrow and then to grow, so it is very much part of the Government’s economic agenda.
I am concerned that banking hubs, along with post offices, are being positioned as the key solution. We on these Benches have always supported shared banking hubs, provided that they provide a good range of basic banking services, including the presence of community bankers from all the main banks on a regular and frequent basis. When the Government have the next financial services Bill, will they amend the legislation to reflect that much broader need? What measures are the Treasury and, indeed, the regulator taking to make sure that those additional banking services are very much the norm and well represented within banking hubs? I join the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Arbuthnot, in saying that the rollout has been quite glacial and that there is a serious lack of ambition in 350 banking hubs; I would assess that double, perhaps even treble that number is necessary. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Emma Reynolds, says that she is
“championing sufficient access for all as a priority”.
Can the Minister tell us what “sufficient” means?
As the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has said, in many small or medium-sized rural towns where a banking hub would not be viable, the Post Office is now the only remaining financial institution where consumers and SMEs can do basic banking. I am really taken with his focus on these post offices as also functioning in many ways as the heart of the community and building the relationships within it, as well as providing services. What assurances can the Minister provide on the survival of these post offices?
The Small Business Minister, Gareth Thomas, said he wanted 99% of people to live within three miles of a post office. I remember trying to deal with this issue when I was an MP, and we had a huge battle because being within three miles or even one mile required you to swim across the Thames to get to the post office that had been identified. Do we now have a common-sense approach to try to work out whether these distances make sense for people in the way that they actually have to travel? What is the timetable, and can the Minister tell us how many post offices are surviving and being protected in rural areas? It is important that they are in deprived parts of urban communities, but rural areas are a greater challenge. The Minister’s views would be extremely helpful.
Community access to cash pilot schemes have been recommended for some of these areas, supposedly with tailored solutions. Can the Minister tell us whether those pilots have taken place?
I will pick up on the concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on digital exclusion. He is essentially the House’s expert in this area, and I found it interesting that he does not consider digital inclusion to be sufficient. He points out that this very much goes hand in hand with the ability to receive face-to-face services.
With 17% of social tenants without any internet access at home, and with so many others in areas where internet access is unreliable and difficult, what action are the Government taking on access to skills? The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked, why not use the post office for teaching and access to skills? Also, what are the Government doing to upgrade the technology as part of financial inclusion?
Access to banking services is a necessity, not a luxury; inclusive growth absolutely requires it. Our rural communities cannot be left disadvantaged. Are the Government ready to get a grip on this issue, be radical if necessary and make sure that both individuals and businesses have the financial infrastructure they require?
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my recent directorship of the Co-operative Bank, which has tried hard to maintain a good branch network, notwithstanding the widespread closures of bank branches all over the country for the past 30 years. I commend the right reverend Prelate for raising this important issue for rural communities—perhaps also for Newcastle, the north-east and the whole country. The Church plays an important role for the vulnerable and perhaps for all society, but banks do too, in the sense that financial services are a mirror to society.
Banks and regulators have a tendency to conflate this issue with access to cash—the distance to the nearest cash machine, say, although hopefully not by swimming, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Banks like to say that technology changes have created a demand for online services and a reduction in the use of branches. In this, banks are conveniently in line with regulators, which focus on cash machines. The FCA last year wrote to the banks with guidelines on cash services, despite efforts made in Parliament during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to protect counter services.
But people like bank branches because they need help. They may need help with fraud. A young person might need help finding out how to get a mortgage. Someone recently married might ask about opening a joint account. They might have questions about children or divorce. They might ask about getting a power of attorney for a parent, or about death. In this way, bank branches become part of the life cycle of people and a community, much as retailers do. When they close, that help and that connection inevitably fragment to social media and elsewhere.
Alas, the number of bank branches has fallen everywhere—down to 5,500 or so in 2023 and probably closer to 3,000 today, as we have heard. This has been an unintended consequence of financial regulation over many years. It started with the FSA and FCA regulations about giving financial advice, which had the consequence of banks ceasing to provide financial advice. This is a good example of well-intentioned but naive regulation to improve consumer protection leading to consumers getting no help at all.
Then, there was cost pressure on the banks, partly as a result of regulation, which made it hard to maintain buildings and branches. It is particularly regrettable that the advantages of ring-fenced banks—a theoretical concept of prudential regulation which comes at an actual, not theoretical, cost of over £1 billion a year to the UK economy—have had the real-world consequence of a reduction in consumer utility through the closure of branches. While the banks are safe, the banks have, as a matter of fact, closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, referenced the plans to provide some support through post offices and the new banking hubs. There may be charity initiatives that could maintain a degree of branch service as well. As of this year, only 100 hubs are operational, and we understand that the Government are committed to achieving 350 hubs by 2029. The Post Office, we think, has indicated a higher number of 500 by 2030. Clearly, these numbers are insufficient, as other noble Lords have pointed out. This issue is rather urgent in areas with no banks at all. Nevertheless, hubs are unlikely to replicate the services and knowledge of a working bank branch.
There is some evidence that closures are now slowing, particularly as Lloyds Bank gets to the end of its closure programme. There may be some competitive advantage to the remaining banks with branches—led by Nationwide, which now has the largest network, with around 700 branches. The regulatory pressure to reduce the number of branches, notwithstanding the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, may be partly offset by the needs of small businesses, which do need branches and do need to handle coins and cash. For them, we must be thankful.
Branch closures are part of a wider retail shutdown going on at the moment, and all the more reason to ask the Government to intervene, perhaps by asking that the banks hold their branch networks now at the level of around 3,000 branches. We could call this level the “Newcastle number” in honour of the right reverend Prelate. We need to mark at some point where the bank closures end, and now is as good a time as any, particularly because the process is slowing. At the very least, we should give time for alternative services to grow before the situation becomes acute, not only in rural communities but everywhere in the country.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for this very timely debate. I reassure her on behalf of all of us that the number taking part is no reflection of the significance of the debate: rather, it is a reflection of the time of day in the run-up to the recess. I thank other noble Lords for their significant contributions to the debate. By way of context, I will say that I live in a small market town and have witnessed the decimation of the number of branches. We are left with one building society branch, although a community hub has opened—so I have personal experience of the issues that have been raised.
There is an important thread running through all of this. We are of course talking about the rural economy and how it is going to survive, but the comments today have been mostly around communities, vulnerability and making sure that we are inclusive in all the work we have done. We have heard the statistics of the rapid closures today. I do not need to repeat them, but I emphasise the comments of the right reverend Prelate around her concerns at the speed with which this is happening.
We must acknowledge the change in banking in recent years. Again, I know from experience the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, my family making sure that I got my act together and got fully included so that they did not have to worry. We must acknowledge that this has opened up a whole new tranche for people and many have benefited from the digital innovations. In 2017, 40% of UK adults regularly used a bank branch. By 2022, only 21% of UK adults still did. Almost 9 in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app, including 65% of over-75s.
I emphasise that it is this Government’s ambition to ensure that all consumers can benefit from digital services. That is why, in the 2024 Autumn Budget, the Government announced funding of over £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. None the less, I assure noble Lords that the Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking to communities across the UK and continue to take action to realise the full economic potential of rural businesses and communities—picking up on the points that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
For example, the Government intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for high-street retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value below £0.5 million from 2026-27.
There have been many comments about connectivity, and I heard the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made very powerfully. That is why, on 17 December, the Government introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to this House, putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders, to address the concerns that have been raised today.
We have heard a lot about the target for banking hub services and we are working closely with banks to roll out 350 hubs by the end of this Parliament. As we know, over 100 have already been opened. I reassure noble Lords of the extent of the services on offer. They provide services for personal account holders, but they also offer services to business customers so that they can withdraw cash, deposit cheques and pay bills. They also have separate rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own bank to carry out the wider banking services that have been raised today, such as registering a bereavement or help with changing a PIN—whatever the need, that service is available. The Government are committed to working with industry to ensure that banking hubs meet customers’ needs. Some banking hubs are trialling opening on Saturday mornings, which is something we can all look at with interest. We will drive forward the rollout of hubs. I cannot say how many hubs will open this year—this is work in progress—but I recognise the ambition around this, and the training needs that have been highlighted today.
It might help if I set out the FCA’s rules that underpin the rollout of banking hubs. When a bank announces a branch closure, LINK, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network, will carry out an impartial assessment of communities’ access to cash needs. Where LINK recommends a banking hub, Cash Access UK—a not-for-profit company funded by the major banks—will provide it. Where a closure triggers an assessment, the branch cannot close until any LINK-recommended services have been installed. I hope that gives some reassurances about the concerns raised.
LINK considers population size, the number of small businesses and levels of vulnerability. It also considers the distance to the nearest branch and the cost and travel time via public transport. Anyone who feels a banking hub is needed, including members of this House, can request an access to cash review directly through the LINK website. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, highlighted access to services. The Government are determined to see local communities get what they need when it comes to cash and banking services and are continually working to improve this.
I pay enormous tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the work that he has done with post offices. I recognise what he said about them being at the heart of the community. I remember the days when you used to go on a weekly basis to pick up child benefit, and the people that you met. When you did that, people knew you were okay. I am afraid that we have lost that. I was a proud owner of a Girobank account as well, and I am delighted that post offices are stepping up to the plate in terms of offering banking services. They have a duty to serve their communities, which is at the heart of this debate, and 99% of personal customers and 95% of business customers can do their everyday banking at the 11,500 post offices around the country. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about communities absolutely fit in with that.
I assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade has met the Post Office’s chair, Nigel Railton, to discuss the Post Office network. It is central to our thinking as a Government.
I appreciate that post office closures can be concerning for communities but, unfortunately, branches can shut down for a variety of reasons, many of which are outside the Post Office’s control. Post Office Ltd works with communities to ensure that services are maintained, and the government-set access criteria ensure that services remain in reach.
Running throughout this discussion today was the issue of financial inclusion. I am pleased that work on the financial inclusion strategy is carrying on and is being developed, alongside a supporting committee chaired by my colleague, the Economic Secretary. The committee’s mission is to tackle a range of barriers to inclusion for excluded groups. That includes work being taken forward by a sub-committee of consumer and industry representatives, focusing on key policy issues, including digital inclusion and access to banking services, which met for the first time earlier today.
I recognise the whole issue of fraud. We have to emphasise that. It is one of the most cynical crimes in the country, targeting the most vulnerable and the elderly.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, many firms support access to digital services through different initiatives. On the noble Lord’s point about the accessibility of card payment terminals, I am pleased that UK Finance and the Royal National Institute of Blind People have developed accessibility guidelines for touchscreen chip and pin services and an approved list of accessible card terminals, although I accept that there is certainly more to do.
Access to cash is something that we have run through, but the whole issue of digital inclusion, as expressed so ably, is pivotal. Through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, this Government are taking the lead and looking forward to working around digital barriers beyond financial services, which can include customers, while the whole issue of the rollout of broadband internet services is something that we are all aware of.
What we need to understand is that access to a transactional bank account is a crucial element in supporting people’s financial resilience and well-being. I think that runs throughout this. I am conscious that there were a number of very specific questions put to me. I guarantee to write in response to those questions.
I end by thanking the right reverend Prelate again for her timely debate, and for her continued championing of rural banking access. I was struck that she broadened this out and recognised that inclusion is an issue right across the country for many of our different communities. I reassure her and the House that the Government will reflect very carefully on all the points that have been raised today in this very thoughtful and helpful debate.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 December 2024 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 12 February.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I beg to move en bloc the two Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.